|
|
|
|
|
| | are women playing GOD when they become pregnantPage 33 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) | Nice diatribe pal!!
Since equality is such a myth and can never be done, try explaining that to women, blacks and any other group that has been set upon by society! I'm sure they will see it your way.
Our society is SUPPOSED to evolve, to move towards giving ALL a chance at equality. No not all people are equal, in inteligence, in strength, in earning potential, in many things. But all should be given a CHANCE to grab the brass ring, if they can't they can't, but they had the opportunity!
As far as myself,(sigh) I guess the easiest way is to explain some things to you. Sorry no pregnant wenches, again sorry, no arrest record, oops, sorry a speeding ticket 14 years ago. As for my other fan, no sorry not raised in the south, was the northeast and my college was one of those extremely liberal ones up there.
Since you are obviously the arbiter of all things and an expert on all people who get women pregnant perhaps you could enlighten us as to what other things you would outlaw? LOL As for Saudi Arabia, sorry I did not enjoy my time there, nor Kuwait, nor UAE. Since I'm American, I believe laws of an unjust nature should be changed, I also believe in my right to free speech, something you obviously would change.
As for your understanding of the lawyers(maggots that they are), I agree, they will like all law makers never change things, they make too much money now, billing you at $400 an hour for your divorce!
Since you seem unreasonable, or at best incapable to see the other side I will guess that you are one of those on here who plays to the ladies causes to attract sympathic attention. Probably a good guess. Even some of the women on here see the unfairness of the situation, not that they would change it, nor accept some of the ideas advanced.
As for you there were many in your mind set back in the 1400's, you know the ones who thought the earth was flat!! Hopefully times will change and someone will come up with a solution, as opposed to being you, calling people names and impuning people's characters that you have no idea of.
PS Having enjoyed a fairly successful business career, having been in successful partnerships(unfortunately not my marriage, she cheated, again not entirely my fault) my business partnerships however were! The key is to constantly negoiate change, when something is wrong, you fix it, NOT live with it.
vvvv Yes belle, like all the women of WW2, Korean War, Viet Nam war and all the other wars who stayed home and fooled around on the men off dying for them. Then divorcing them while they fought. It's a lame argument I know, but no different than yours. Women use these excuses, to justify their own selfish actions. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:44:41 PM | Hmm...well, I haven't read all 34 pages, but since the main topic the last few pages seems to be more the issue of who pays...
JMO, but I don't think ANYONE, either male OR female, should have a child/children, unless they are fully capable of supporting that child/children entirely on their own. All the talk in the world about who *should* pay for this or not, amounts to a hill of beans, if one partner gets shmucked by a bus the day after the baby is born, after all...and then what? Life insurance notwithstanding, and that only goes so far...then what? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:50:00 PM | No...they're not half of the DNA equation or the responsibility by any means, are they.
Strawman.
Off topic.
We're aren't debating biology.
It's not "consent to make" that is the issue, it's assuming the risk.
Strawman.
Don't "change" the issue, if you can't debate the "issue" put forth.
A man cannot assume a risk he is incapable of.
When you insert your d|ck into a v@gina, you assume the risk and potential financial responsibilities.
False.
Recreational sex, and procreational sex are not mutally inclusive.
Not without expressed or even implied consent. From either gender.
Agreeing to have sex, is not agreeing to becoming a parent, for EITHER gender.
Try again...
did you EVER graduate from Kindergarden?
Actually, because of my IQ, they kept wanting me to jump grades all throughout both elementary, and secondary school.
My studies in college were in the second of the 3 languages I can read an write.
Wanna know how long my thumbs are?
Anymore questions?
Nothing is equal...ever.
Duh....
All alleged rights are just really privleges which can be bestowed, or withdrawn.
Those are your feelings?
Here's a tip.
Don't move to Texas.
Verity...Women do NOT make babies. Men,and women together make babies, which women carry, and deliver.
That's called a non sequitur.
Stop building upon a false premise.
A woman makes a baby with a man's DNA.
No man need be present.
Stop building strawmen, false premises, and changing the topic when you can't debate something.
Here it is again. I'll say it in English.
Debate this:
A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby.
If you can't debate this.
Say so.
Don't change the topic.
Demonstrate your advanced modern "learnin".
I, as well as many others ( I'm sure ) eagerly await....
It is not the issue at hand, CS is. But, I will answer.
Because she is the "President" or "Prime Minister" of her body and can make arbitrary decisions that the people don't have the right to. It came with the package.
Just like I cannot force anything upon your body if you don't want me to.
In your next life, work to become a female and then you can make decisions based on life or death....like your President of the USA or the Prime Minister of Canada...and women.
Strawman, and completely off topic.
You didn't even give any logical reason, yet concluded why a man should pay CS based on a non sequitur.
You just argued for something that has NEVER been in question (the right to do with her body as she wishes) , even when you said you will explain the basis for demanding CS from the man.
Her decisions, her body, his money?
Show me your logic...
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:59:50 PM | Sorry, but it is not the CS, that is to me the issue. It is the trial and sentence without benefit of judge and jury, nor any form of defense.
A woman can discuss it with the man, come to an agreement, then turn and change her mind without a 'by your leave' or a single word. The man is left with no input, no recourse, nothing!! Since they are not married, she can abort, even if he wants the child. She can have the child, get an order of CS, then pick up and move the child 3,000 miles to the other coast making visitation impossible.
She can be a crack head or a whore and in 95% of cases she will keep custody. Now the cash comes into it. CSU will help her retain counsel, and the guy already paying child support has to try to get an attorney on his reduced circumstances.
The point is, there are NO male reproductive rights, further after the fact, the machine that govern us all will support her. He11 it is only in the last 15 years that DNA tests proved paternity, before that, a man accused was guilty until proven innocent, totally unlike our constitution. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:08:22 PM | I think there are FEW ways to avoid or significantly reduce all this drama.
Do not trust a woman on her contraception and always use your own
Do not date a woman who is obsessed with babies and clear about the fact that her clock is ticking. They can trt to trap you.
Date a woman who is normal, responsible and not a control frick. Such women are not going to control a man through a child.
If you are in relationship and she has a traditional views be ready to proposal and marry her.
If she dosn't want children and very independant be ready that she will abort.
I just do not see a normal woman who is in relationship with you upon getting pregnant will want you out of the picture.
Expecting dad. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:21:05 PM | | Verity. You have no logic. You do not understand business law as it pertains to partnerships. Entering into a partnership a man assumes all risks involved in that partnership. His choice, his partnership his debts. Consent by a man to enter into a sexual partnership involves his assuming 100% of the costs which derive from that partnership. Partnership risks are different than proprietorship, or corporation, risks. If you, and wanna, go into partnership to open a bar, and take out business loans, for $50,000.00 to stock the bar with beer, but-behind your back, unknown to you-wanna takes out a loan for $3,000,000.00 in the business name, and he takes all the money-$3,050,000.00, and goes to Argentina (where there are no extradition treaties)-YOU, AND ONLY YOU- MUST pay back all loans...even those you did not sign for... because your partner did sign for them in the business/partnership name, and all partners are 100% responsible for all debts of the partnership. You seem to not realize that having sex with a woman is legally entering into a business partnership with her...making you 100% responsible for all debts resulting from that partnership. That is why she is called a sex PARTNER. Hire an attorney, ask him whether I am right about this, and then have him explain it to you. Also get him to explain how verbal contracts are just as valid, and enforceable in court as are written contracts. Your DNA in your illegitimate brat is proof that you entered into a verbal contract with the brat's mother for a sexual partnership...just as a written contract with your signature on it is proof that you entered into a written contract with your credit card issuer. If you do not like partnership law, do not enter into partnerships...sexual, or otherwise. If you do enter into sexual partnerships, you will be held accountable for all expenses which result from those partnerships. It may not be fair, but it is the law,and it will not soon change. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:24:50 PM |
Women as we know have all the power here
I suspect that this particular opinion/mindset is the very CORE of this issue.
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.
I can make a couple of educated guesses...condoms interfere with spontenaity, sensation and male pleasure( trust me guys, we ladies don't particularly like condoms either). Any kind of sterilization procedure, even the reversible ones, involves exposing a man's most treasured possession to a certain amount of risk.And I do not in any way,ahape or form mean to dismiss or discount that concern! I don't guess most women would want somebody tinkering around their clitoris with a sharp object, either.
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.
I would sure like to know how you came up with THAT idea! Female birth control methodology also costs money. To the best of my knowledge, they don't hand out free bc pills, diaphragms,rings, IUDs,etc as free gifts with a $10 purchase at the local WalMart. Voluntaryfemale sterilization procedures are not usually covered by any health insurance I know of. It's a more complicated, invasive and riskier procedure than vasectomy...I know that many advances have been made since last I researched these matters, but overall, partaking in "recreational" sex is NOT free for women. And if you think that "forcing" the poor soul whose d*ck caused a recreational sex event to become motherhood somehow makes so called "recreational sex" a cost free joy ride for the woman, you need to call a proctologist to have your head examined.
Then, lets toss in the risk of STDs and negative perceptions by her peers should a woman routinely engage in first date or Saturday-night bar star sexual encounters...oh yeah, we are definitely "privileged" to "freely partake" of 'recreational sex'. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE..I think what's REALLY cHapping the asses of certain gentlemen here is their own mindset that they are powerless, that women "get away with murder" yada yada yada. I'll be the first to say that I have no doubt whatsoever, that they were hard done by at some point. But it's time to realize that the horse named "Resentment" is DEAD,and stop beating it.
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?
The topic here is pregnancy, not STDs. It's my understanding that there have been situations where a man who was wilfully having unprotected sex even though he had HiV/AIDS, was subjected to criminal prosecution. But again, that's NOT the topic under discussion here.
it's about the fact that men lose all of their rights once she is.(Pregnant) Again going just by what I've read and heard, he certainly has the right to demand that his paternity be PROVEN. Otherwise, since there is still a very high likelihood that the woman's earning power is going to be impacted by pregnancy, delivery and motherhood, and the fact that a live baby needs to have food shelter and clothing, the only "right" a man 'loses" is a part of his income...just the same as the Court could dictate financial reparation to someone he injured, or whose property was damaged,by his actions, even if they weren't WILFULLY malicious or negligent.
Hey maybe some of these big insurance companies should start offering "paternity liability" insurance polices?
Why not...? we can insure our homes against loss/liability, our liability as motorists, our life, our health, or ability to work, our pets and companion animals lives and medical care, our liabilities related to our occupations...
Anyway now I digress, but to say tham men "lose ALL their rights" if they are involved in an unplanned pregnancy is a HUGE overstatement. All he "loses" is that a portion of his income is diverted to help provide for a child that has his genes. And I'll be there are quite a few situations where a woman is able to adequately care for the child,so she doesn't even BOTHER with asking for child support. For the most part, involuntary child support is going to come into play when a child needs some form of assistance from a social service entity.
Look, nobody here s denying that there AREN'T situations where some effed-up-in-the-head female uses her reproductive system to punish a man, snare a man, get some social service program to cut her a check...yes I know thse things DO happen. But to posit that ALL women are "playing GOD" when they decide to conceive a child, is patently ridiculous.
For those who find this concept troubling/frightening,wouldn't you be better served to find local "men's rights" activist groups and GET INVOLVED...instead of having hissy fits on a freakin' internet forum?
But this issue isn't about who's fault it is that she's pregnant, it's about the fact that men lose all of their rights once she is.
This is where I think you are wrong about what this thread is about. This is certainly about who fault it is, apparently to a lot of men, it is only the woman's fault if a pregnancy happens and he was an innocent bystander in all of it.
Yeah, the " well I slipped and my penis accidentally fell in this woman's vagina" story...
LOL, I'm reminded of a TV show or movie, and I can't remember if it was Granny Clampett or Ma Kettle; another character exlaimed something about being "an innocent bystander" and Granny( or Ma's) retort was "Them's the ones we kill first!" I always thought that was EXCELLENT advice and I've tried to live by it wherever possible...
And you wonder why women these days can get "dates" but rarely get long term things. Must be a perception thing? Who's to say.
I can only speak for myself, but it's been my experience that alot of men in my dating age range are divorced for a reason,and I wouldn't WANT them for a "long term thing". They can be lovely companions/diversions but so often I find myself feeling it necessary to keep them at arm's length, so to speak, in terms of how closely involved I let it get.
This is where you don't understand that the woman CHOSE to have sex.
here's a newsflash...WE HAVE URGES TOO. for a healthy woman, that desire to have sex can be every bit as strong as the male urge. But if we stifle that urge and refuse to have sex,then we have a resentful, pouting male who may badger, browbeat, argue, try to make the refusing woman out as somehow defective, deficient or pathologically oldfashioned.
Again, I GET that there ARE women who use sex and reproduction for nefarious purposes. But their existence does nOT mean men have no rights and women have all the power.
If you as a man, feel that WOMEN have all the power, or you as a woman feel MEN have all the power, you are a person with serious self esteem/victim issues. Maybe that should be addresseed before you continue with Adventures in Modern Dating. JMO.
The fact that you have responsible sex and STILL even then are reduced to a paycheck for some leech who laughs all the way to his bank is wrong with out some form of redress
Hmm...is someone's damge showing here?
Are you sure it is alimony you are upset about, or is it child support you are calling alimony? The two are different things, and alimony is almost non-existant these days.
That's been my understanding from talking to people in positions to know. There may be a short term 'spousal support" for a spouse not employed outside the home to get her or himself back into the work force, and I imagine there may be longer term payments for a spouse with a LONG history of being the "home maker"without outside employment, a spouse that is disabled from being able to obtain gainful employment...but the days of women lounging around eating bonbons and watching soap operas,courtesy of huge alimony checks, is, from all I read, see and hear, a thing of the past. Money required of the non custodial parent to help provide for the CHILDREN is not 'alimony". And again, if men who are actually IN THE POSITION,if it's their ox that's getting gored,want to be activists for 3rd party management of child support monies, or if they want children removed from the parent and placed in state run homes where proper use of the funds could be assured, that's fine by me. It would certainly cut down on women using their p*ssies to entrap a man and use his money for her own luxuries...she files a legal action for child support, the kid get taken away and put under the State's care. And BOTH parents have to pay.
NOW, this sort of system could certainly be blasted as making parenthood a privilege only available to the well-off, or forcing unfortunate single mothers and their children to live under ultrasubstandard conditions...so not EVERYBODY would be behind it...just so you know. But feel free to get involved in creating such legislation.I would certainly think it would help the affected men to feel a certain degree of fighting for empowerment.
than they would also believe that abortions should also be illegal, with a charge of first degree murder for any offense(even in the cases of pregnancies resulting from rape), and any woman who didn't want to face such life altering conundrums should therefor just have to get her tubes tied or remain celibate for the rest of her life. NO, it would simply lead to more unwanted children that SOMEBODY would have to provide for. And if she can be punished, shouldn't the male who impregnated her be charged as an accessory to the crime? Maybe men should ALSO be forced to choose either sterilization or celibacy as well? Or is this REALLY about men getting to have their cake and eat it too?
But since marriage is no longer very attractive to men, women have resorted to now turning sex into a potential "Gotchya!" in order to hook a man.
OMFG!! It's a plot, ladies, and we are all in on it!We are all so f*ckin desperate to "hook a man" that we will expose our bodies to the risks of pregnancy and and childbirth, and sign up for a minimum of 18 years of work, worry, expense, stress,sleep deprivation,etc, (the DOWN side of being a parent) just to "hook a man"!
Look, I don't deny that this DOES happen, but to make it out to be some bigass PLOT by women to "hook" a man,and/or "punish" the male gender for the alleged loss of interest in marriage? absof*ckinglutely ridiculous.
JMO, but I don't think ANYONE, either male OR female, should have a child/children, unless they are fully capable of supporting that child/children entirely on their own
yes, absolutely. But this is not an ideal world. Shit happens. How would you legislate that? Or should we as a society have some goverment entity take custody of any children, living or in utero, from parents who become involved in a court action involving child support, or any parent who applies for social assistance?
Agreeing to have sex, is not agreeing to becoming a parent, for EITHER gender
Guess what.Setting aside sex with the same gender, or a female past reproductive phase of life...reproduction is an INHERENT RISK of penis/vagina sexual intercourse. Don't wanna accept that risk? Don't have sex that has reproduction as an INHERENT risk. In other words, don't let Richard wander into a p*ssy.
Show me your logic...
Would you KNOW it if you saw it? Or would you simply dismiss it as another'strawman'? Why do you see EVERYTHING that isn't kissing your arse as a 'strawman'? I'm reminded of the folk wisdom, "If the only tool you have is a hammer,EVERYTHING looks like a nail."
Cindy O | |
|
| |
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:49:43 PM |
Taxpayer's burden....like deadbeat dads and irresponsible people having sex. In reality, people won't stop having sex, indiscriminate sex, sex with strangers, sex with anyone that turns their crank....so the argument for only people who can afford to have a baby becomes moot. How are you going to police this? Pregnancies happen...
...with the economic times...being like a yoyo...
Well actually, *I* don't plan to police this in any way, lol, since I'm obviously not in a position to, for anyone else besides myself. But...hmm...maybe in all of that, there IS an option for the men, since that's what this thread is about apparently...
The "economic times" be damned...that's a ludicrous thing to say. And, what does that even mean????
I agree with you that people, by and large, aren't going to stop having sex...but...maybe if it WASN'T so indiscrimate on BOTH the man and woman's part...hmm...instead of making the solution, as you said, "taxpayer's burden"....
The stats supposedly say that an estimated 3 in 10 children currently born in North America, have the incorrect father on the birth certificate...so...making mandatory DNA testing a requisite BEFORE a man signs a birth certificate, might go a long way towards equality in this regard, don't you think? I know if I were a man, in this day and age with this science available to me? Damned straight I would insist on a DNA testing, especially if it pertained to someone I wasn't in a serious relationship with.
It's been asked before in this thread, I now see, about how to level things to make it "equal"...well, mandatory DNA testing would be a first option I would think, guys.
Frankly, IMO, in this day and age, there is NO excuse for getting pregnant. And, anytime someone DOES "accidentally" get pregnant? Then *someone* made a choice to do so. Birth control is readily available...and, taken correctly, it's reliable...otherwise, Pfizer would have gone out of business a decade ago. Pffft.
Now, IS it solely the woman's responsibility? That's up to each person to decide. Bottom line, though, no matter how much one educates...the woman is the one who ends up pregnant...
I would hope that lil detail would make more women sit up and think but... | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:16:33 PM |
What if someone chooses to have the baby because he/she feels they can afford it. They get pregnant and have baby...and he/she loses her job. Now, she/he can't afford the baby. Economics....So...what happens in your opinion?
I would sincerely hope, that more thought than one paycheque, goes into the decision "do we/don't we" or "do I/don't I" have a baby...wouldn't you agree?
Again...if one is only "one paycheque away" from being able to afford to have a baby...again I'd say pffft....and they probably should have used their birth control more wisely. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:50:22 PM |
Explain. You mean to say that every man who supported suffrage and all the other women's rights issues over the past 100 years was a self-serving politician who was only interested getting female votes?
No, not *every* man...that'd be ridiculous and untrue.
I mean that if there was a preexisting quorum in favor of suffrage, then it wouldn't have taken a public movement to change the law of the land.
There was persuasion that occurred. Equality wasn't granted on the outset because of the perception of inequality by those initially in power.
That perception still hasn't gone away for some. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 5:10:25 PM | 1. Men and women can equally prevent pregnancy.
2. Once a pregnancy occurs only a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy.
3. If the woman carries a child to term the man is a father and the woman is a mother.
4. Once the baby is born both mother and father must decide if they wish to be responsible for the child. Either one can say no, lets put it up for adoption. Either one can veto this option. The woman can decide, no I wish to raise the child. The man can say I wish to raise the child. If the man decides yes and the woman no, the woman is responsible for child support. If the woman decides yes and the man no, the man is responsible for child support. Ideally of course, both say yes or both no.
The only inequality is in step 2. A woman gets to decide to abort or not. And even though it is not fair, it does make sense. Either choice involves her body.
Just because in step 4 it is more common for the woman to say yes and the man to say no does not make it unequal. Once step four is reached there is no longer just the mother and father, but also the child. At this point neither the mother or father has absolute right to just walk away from the child anymore. We as a society have decided that it is in the best interest of the child to be raised by a biological parent. Furthermore, we have decided that the child deserves the support from both parents. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 5:18:41 PM | My answer???
It is not the issue at hand, CS is. But, I will answer.
Because she is the "President" or "Prime Minister" of her body and can make arbitrary decisions that the people don't have the right to. It came with the package.
She should have the right decide HER fate, either way. No one can FORCE her to have a baby, or force the RESPONSIBILITY, of a baby she does not want.
That's not the debate.
On what grounds do you feel that the RESPONSIBILITY can be FORCED on a man, (for a baby he did not gestate, and ) for a baby he does not want?
Just like I cannot force anything upon your body if you don't want me to.
That's EXACTLY what you condone.
You talk out both sides of your mouth.
In your next life, work to become a female and then you can make decisions based on life or death....like your President of the USA or the Prime Minister of Canada...and women.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Blah, blah, blah....
Stop obfuscating
Now...quit that strawman stuff and cherry-picking
Try and comprehend what a strawman is...
Verity. You have no logic.
Here we go again...
You do not understand business law as it pertains to partnerships.
That's funny, I've had a contract lawyer for years.
Explain what it is you think I'm unaware of.
Entering into a partnership a man assumes all risks involved in that partnership.
A man and woman fvcking, is not a "partnership".
Your DNA in your illegitimate brat is proof that you entered into a verbal contract with the brat's mother for a sexual partnership...
One cannot prove what the other said, without a witness, or a record.
One cannot prove, what one did not say.
You cannot prove non existence. You can only prove an existence.
The null hypothesis.
If there's no consent that you can prove, you DO NOT have consent.
Sex is consent to sex. Not to being raped.
And none of any of what you wrote changes the fact that the woman can CHOOSE to OPT out of any, and all liabilities.
Also get him to explain how verbal contracts are just as valid, and enforceable in court as are written contracts.
Patently false.
Otherwise, I'd sue you for a million dollars I claim you promised me.
You seem to not realize that having sex with a woman is legally entering into a business partnership with her...making you 100% responsible for all debts resulting from that partnership.
Really?
Really??
Great!!!!
I'm off to get that Mercedes SLR....
Hire an attorney, ask him whether I am right about this
Tell you what, hire an attorney that will put his stamp of approval on that claim. Post it on a server, and send me the bill.
If you do enter into sexual partnerships, you will be held accountable for all expenses which result from those partnerships. It may not be fair, but it is the law,and it will not soon change.
You're obviously unaware of full disclosure, limited partnerships, limited liabilities, contingencies, exigencies, amendments, adjuncts, breaches, escape clauses etc....as they pertain to ANY partnership among separate entities.
A man cannot assume a risk he is incapable of. Risk of pregnancy?? Incapable?
Explain to me, exactly how a man HIMSELF "brings" a child into this world, after having sex with a woman.
Agreeing to have sex, is not agreeing to becoming a parent, for EITHER gender Guess what.Setting aside sex with the same gender, or a female past reproductive phase of life...reproduction is an INHERENT RISK of penis/vagina sexual intercourse.
Guess what.
Oil and water don't mix on their own.
And I want a peanut butter sammich.
None of that negates what I said.
You didn't debate me. You switched topics.
Strawman.
Why do you see EVERYTHING that isn't kissing your arse as a 'strawman'?
Claiming "A" is wrong by arguing against "B", is a strawman.
I'll post it again, if you want to debate.
Debate this:
A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 5:44:38 PM |
A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby.
But making a baby is an INHERENT RISK of consentual sex, even the use of the more common means of contraception is NOT a 100% removal of that inherent risk. For that matter, in addition to the risk of pregnancy engendered by what's commonly considered to be "sex", the risk of STDs is also inherent. Unfortunately, sex with another man, or unprotected sex,as one might engage in with a woman genuinely (hysterectomy or post menopausal) incapable of reproducing, probably has an INCREASED risk of transmitting an STD.
HAVING HETEROSEXUAL SEX CARRIES AN INHERENT RISK OF CONCEPTION. IF YOU CANNOT DEAL WITH THAT RISK, YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN PENIS/VAGINAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN OF CHILDBEARING AGE.
I would also think that you could demand proof(by a paternity test) and contest an attempt by some woman to get your money. But if the test supports the woman's allegation that it was your sperm that fertilized her egg, you certainly can't be forced to actually be a FATHER to the child, but you will be required to provide financial support to the DNA and genes in that child that came from YOU.
Cindy O | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 5:57:43 PM |
But making a baby is an INHERENT RISK of consentual sex
Blah, blah, blah.
All of your collective arguments are strawmen.
Built on the fallacies that
1- SEX=BABY
2- SEX=CONSENT TO PREGNANCY
3- INSEMINATION=INEVITABILITY
Here's the claim.
Answer the question directly. Don't change the topic.
The topic is "A". Don't stray from the topic.
A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby.
Agree?
Disagree? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:14:36 PM |
All of your collective arguments are strawmen.
Y'know what? This ISN'T about any debate or discussion for you, is it? It's about displaying your resentment, your damage, your fear and hatred of women.
Dude, I'm sorry for whatever the hell f*cked with your head so bad, but it's not my problem.
Conception is an inherent risk of heterosexual, penis/vagina sexual intercourse. The risk can be markedly minimized by birth control methodolgy, sterilization or infertility of the female) due to her being COMPLETELY passed through menopause or having undergone a COMPLETE hysterectomy)
INHERENT RISK. IF YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH IT,DON'T HAVE SEX WITH POSSIBLY FERTILE WOMEN.ESPECIALLY IF SHE SEEMS LAZY, UNAMBITIOUS, UNMOTIVATED .OR SLY, RATHER THAN SMART.
If these are the only types of women you can get with, then maybe you better take your "rights" to the urologist's office and get yourself clipped so no damn conniving b*tch can" force you to be a father".
Cindy O | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:25:08 PM | Verity...go back to Business Law 101. Consenting to have sex IS consenting to an agreement to TAKE THE RISK OF MAKING A BABY, AND PAYING FOR ANY MADE.
You are a strawboy | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:45:18 PM | The above post^^^^^
Business law has nothing to with that. Yes there are many pages written on partnership laws. I agree. However, there are no laws written on what you are responsible for when you sleep with a gal. It is not eve a case of common English law.
What are you become responsible for example by law when you become friends wth someone? Is it also a partnership? Are you responsible by law when you enter a partnership of friendship to be there for your friend, to support him/her if they get unemployed? 
So, going for lunch with a co-worker means accepting a risk that during this lunch a co-worker will develop a food allergy and you OBLIGED to call 911, care for him/zhe before medicas will arive, follow him/her to a hospital, pay a bill, stay in the hospital until an immediate family wll arrive?
Quite frankly it is a matter of choice. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:52:20 PM | i think what verity and the other guys are saying which is unfair is the following:
once a women gets pregnant she has right to have the baby or an abortion. they want men to have that same right. meaning he should be allowed whether he wants be responsible for the baby or not.
it is a double standard and may seem unfair to men but it's alot more unfair for taxpayers to pick up the tab. essentially you procreate the kid you pay, not me. women breed therefore they have that ultimate choice. men don't and therefore they don't.
there are double standards for men, and there are for women. it's up to an individual whether to let them affect you or not. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:01:32 PM | | The law-written, and unwritten-does say that sex, and marriage-but not friendship-are partnerships. In common law, just sleeping with a gal means you are married to her. In some jurisdictions, spending the night with her-whether you have sex, or not-means you are married by common law. Learn some law before you comment on it. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:10:47 PM | Let's try another analogy:
Vehicle = The woman's body
Driver = The woman - who has ultimate control of the vehicle and who has the utmost responsibility to drive defensively in order to not get in an accident, being that it's her vehicle and she's driving it
Passenger = The man - participates in a ride in the vehicle - passengers take risks that they may get hurt when allowing someone else to be in control of the vehicle
Gas = The man's sperm
Accident = Pregnancy
I have yet to see a passenger going for a ride in a vehicle be ordered to pay for damages, or the gas that operates the vehicle be charged with being the cause of the accident. Obviously, the car cannot move to get in an accident if there is no gas, but it's not the gas that causes the accident. Nor is the passenger the one who makes the decision to keep or sell the car after the accident.
As idiotic as it is for a man not to use proper protection and ensure that a woman is taking two forms of birth control (so you effectively have 3 methods being used) and to ensure he doesn't contract STD's and her likewise, he is not the one in control of pregnancy itself or the longevity of same. If a woman does not wish to become pregnant, continue to be pregnant, chooses to keep a child or go the adoption route, it is soley her decision and her responsibility and she should be the one bearing any associated costs. This, of course, is with respect to what amounts to recreational sex as there is generally no intent on the part of the man to become a father. Inside a marriage, which I believe should be the criteria for intent of procreation and amounts to a contract, then, yes, both parties should be held equally accountable financially because there is intent or the possibility of intent by both parties.
I know, it's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it but it does show that the woman does have far more control than the man does in the situation of pregnancy and, yes, I believe the laws as they currently are are skewed in favour of women more than men. And, yes, it should be mandatory that even in marriage, that DNA testing be done as a matter of course to protect all parties concerned.
OK...now go ahead and rip my analogy to pieces.
I'm not biased because I've not had anyone in my immediate family involved in unwanted pregnancies, male or female. Common sense and adequate precautions have been taught, understood and adhered to. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances are like people who get behind the wheel of a car without knowing the rules of the road or how to drive, other than to know that you turn the ignition on and hit the gas. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:06:51 PM |
Many women in this thread have agreed and stated numerous times that it's unfair, but beyond that - what is it would you like us to do about it? What do you want to do about it? What's the purpose of the enlightenment?
Is there some action we're taking here about this or are we just venting? If we're venting, that's fine. How long are we planning on venting before we feel we made enough noise?
My questions from earlier - apparently never responded to. Can't say I am surprised. I was going to include "I don't expect an answer" when I posted it but I thought it'd be jumping the gun. ..lol.
Anyone want to give this a shot? Or does the discussion of what to do about it take us too far away from the general complaining about how unfair it all is? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:16:58 PM | I like the analogy in post # 872. Kudos!!!
All I would add is, when science finds a pill that I, as a man, can take and virtually gaurantee (98%) that I can enjoy sex and not impregnate a woman - I'll be signing up for a life long perscription!!!!
Then, and only then, I think men and women will be reaching equality in the pregnancy department.
Hell, if it goes wrong we can jointly sue the pharmacutical company!
However, it really comes down to the critter is growing inside the woman's body. Aborting or choosing full-term is a lot of risk for her, either way. I've seen both.
As things stand, in a court of law, it's not fair to men. Nonetheless, it's still the woman's body that is providing the opportunity for a lifeform to grow within her, with all the inherent risks involved.
There is no easy answer to the delimma. What would be nice is if more women would realize the catch 22 men find themselves in: Is physical intimacy enhancing the relationship or is it a calculated risk?
Some would argue it's both for men: intimacy and a risk. Rightly so, but remember: no matter how stringent the birth control (BC) efforts are, they still fail (beyond manipulation) a percentage of the time. [ 2-5%? No, I don't have stats to prove it, I'm simply making a point].
If he should find himself in that rare situation where BC fails - HIS CHOICE IS NULL AND VOID THEREAFTER!
Men over the age of 18 should be aware of this p0ossible senario. Sadly, most aren't; many are taken advantage of.
Other guys have tryed to explain this, better that I have, in this thread. Some women get it. Some don't. Doesn't matter to me. I'm extremely cautious about which women I have sex with.
Like I said, I'll love the day there is a Man Pill.
just a 'empathy is appreciated, but not required' thought | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:31:49 PM |
A consent to sex by a man, is no more an agreement to make a baby, than consent by a woman to have sex, is an agreement to make a baby.
A consent to drive by a man, is no more an agreement to have an accident, than consent by a woman to drive a car, is an agreement to have an accident.
And yet, accidents happen, and we all know that when we get behind the wheel. And despite another car-analogy post, in SEX both people are active.
What is at issue here?
Say....there are THREE people involved in the accident created by only TWO drivers. If two irresponsible drivers smash, at the same time, into a passive third party, the ONLY party injured through no fault of its own is the third one. In determining what's "fair" and what isn't, the principal party whose fair-treatment should be priority number one is the one who didn't actually make the choice to drive in the first place.
Babies, like the third party smashed into by two irresponsible drivers, are helpless--unable to avoid the outcome of the crash.
Men who knock up women they wish they hadn't, producing babies they wish they hadn't (cuz they like orgasmed) can waaaaa all they want. Unless you really think it would be desirable to be able to force abortions on women who don't want them, either take the necessary steps to ensure that you don't fertilize an egg or suck it up. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:45:25 PM | | The founding fathers were deceptive SOBs. You can PERSUE happiness...but have no right to catch it/have it. The rights in The Bill Of Rights only applied to white men...not women, not blacks who were 3/5 a man rather than a man, not natives, etc. Read up on common law, and you will find that in some jurisdictions just living together-sometimes with no time limit mentioned...(so being caught in the same house for two hours qualifies)-and being represented to others as a couple as if married... meaning if she tells the neighbors"we are living together" (whether you are or not) makes you legally married to the wench under common law. Being married, thus, means she owns half of all you own...because you came over to her house to screw her once, and she lied to the neighbors about your relationship. It IS business law, with centuries of precedent behind it. Those who don't know, or believe that play sex games at their own peril. Thomas Jefferson-on of the founding fathers-not only owned slaves, he was also a pedophile who had sex with, and impregnated minor slaves...the youngest of which gave birth to his child when she was only NINE years old herself. Be careful who you hero worship. They might surprise you. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
33
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 
