But- if we do this, saying essentially that it is solely up to the woman to be able to make this choice, and the man who did this has 0 say so. Okay, fine.
In this same scenario though, then can't we question why men are required to pay child support if they didn't want to have the child? After all, if we're leaving it up to a woman to make the decision whether to HAVE or NOT HAVE, shouldn't she also be responsible for the financials as well? Last I checked it takes 2 people to make a baby. (Rape/incest, etc is obviously completely different scenario, etc.)
I think women should be able to make the choice- it's their body. I get it. But I also don't believe in 'special' privileges either (Myself being that extremely white privileged male that I would love to be able to take advantage of someday).
The feminists are out of their minds these days. Most seem to be just man haters. 1 side of the spectrum, its frowned upon to hit a girl, and punishable. On the other side, it's sexist to treat women any differently than a man because there are no differences between female/male.
agreed, if the woman has a choice whether to keep or not a baby and the partner has no say then he shouldn't be expected to pay support if he doesn't want to keep it.
I have this theory how to solve the sex/babies grey area in the future
*everyone is neutered at a certain age determined by science, we can still fuck but everybodys shooting blanks
*we submit to a jizz bank the best, prime, sperm or eggcells,, determined by whatever science says e.g. 16 to 18 etc
*babies should be raised in labs, too many assholes dont know how to eat properly or what not to do e.g. drugs, cigs, alchohol, etc
*too many unecessary shitty kids who will bring up too many unecessary kids in the future must stop
*children will no longer automatically "belong" to the mother - no more physical health risks involved in child creation , will resolve custody battles only based on pure meritocracy and no more emotional bullshit
*only then will there be real equality, women no longer have to "bear" nor "raise" children
Pros:
- best quality broodstock
- no more birthing deaths for both mom or kid
- no more preggers drama
- people will just fuck just to fuck
- people will separate sex from family somewhat greatly
- custody battles easier to resolve in courts
- zero unwanted babies, less shitty people in the future
- love and sex divide will become very clear
I have this theory how to solve the sex/babies grey area in the future
*everyone is neutered at a certain age determined by science, we can still fuck but everybodys shooting blanks
*we submit to a jizz bank the best, prime, sperm or eggcells,, determined by whatever science says e.g. 16 to 18 etc
*babies should be raised in labs, too many assholes dont know how to eat properly or what not to do e.g. drugs, cigs, alchohol, etc
*too many unecessary shitty kids who will bring up too many unecessary kids in the future must stop
*children will no longer automatically "belong" to the mother - no more physical health risks involved in child creation , will resolve custody battles only based on pure meritocracy and no more emotional bullshit
*only then will there be real equality, women no longer have to "bear" nor "raise" children
the only one good thing about this plan is that you wont reproduce.
On March 13 2017 22:34 Baalim wrote:
agreed, if the woman has a choice whether to keep or not a baby and the partner has no say then he shouldn't be expected to pay support if he doesn't want to keep it.
Not debating the legislation aspect of it, but just as an aside, wouldn't you say that it's a shitty thing to do (to not help at all financially)? You are still responsible for that child's existence. You didn't take the precautions necessary and now you are fully escaping responsibility and the life of that child is severely affected. In some cases he might be lucky and the mother will find a partner early enough who is financially able to provide for them, but in a lot of cases she ends up alone, makes a lot of sacrifices and the child still gets punished. I think too often in this argument people see this as a form of justice/revenge against the woman and don't realize it's really not about her.
I am 100% pro-choice
Are you selectively pro-choice at all? Like, should these people be allowed to breed like they did knowing the chances of what they'll impose? How do you feel about the idea of some sort of basic competence test to establish if someone is fit to be a parent?
Oh and, obligatory quotes:
"I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. Talk someone into it. If she don't fuckin' listen, put an RU-486 in her drink like a roofie." - Doug Stanhope
"Y'know what bugs me? People waffling on the idea of abortion. Even, even pro-choice people, it bugs the shit outta me."We're not pro-abortion , we're pro-choice" " We just don't believe the government has a right to tell us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies" "We're not pro-abortion, we're pro-choice" Heyyy just say it. What the...... say it! Quit fuckin walking on eggs just say it! People suck, there's too many of em, and they're easier to kill when they're foetuses than when they're grown up. Oh sorry did the mask fall? Let me put that back on. "Hahahaaha" Arent people the keenest things you've ever seen?" - Bill Hicks
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
You guys are viewing the problem in kind of an absurd manner.
Once the woman is pregnant the man is already responsible for that. He has made his choice to impregnate her. Does not matter whether or not it was an accident. Why the fuck would he not have to pay child support in case the woman chooses to keep the child? There are plenty of precautions a man could take in order to not fall into such scenario
Getting pregnant and deciding whether or not the keep it, are two completely different topics. And the man should have no saying in the second one. The source of his responsibilities further is the first topic though
On March 14 2017 10:51 Spitfiree wrote:
You guys are viewing the problem in kind of an absurd manner.
Once the woman is pregnant the man is already responsible for that. He has made his choice to impregnate her. Does not matter whether or not it was an accident.
Kinda does matter for the sake of your argument if it wasn't a choice, i.e. if there is a failed contraceptive behind it. It's not like they are 100% foolproof. So he made his choice to have sex with her, not to impregnate her. That's where I think they're coming from -- "we don't deserve to be stuck with that financial responsibility now as a result of this bad luck". That's why I'm saying they should be looking at it from the perspective of the child, not their unfortunate circumstance. But yea, in such a case there was no doubt a way to take better precautions, whether it's doubling down on the contraceptive or getting into a contractual arrangement with the partner in case this was to happen.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
It's impossible to create laws that handle any given scenario in a case, thats why there are commissions to interpret them if needed. People are 100% aware of the risks, so they do take responsibilities when the action is taken. Choosing to fuck her is like ticking the " accept the conditions in the agreement" when singing up in a page basically so you know, if you impregnate her you will have to pay for that. Obviously we're not including rape here.
What's your opinion/knowledge on tabloids and tabloid style mediums VDM ?
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
President Donald Trump may have leaked his own 2005 tax return, according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston.
Johnston said he obtained the document by mail. He subsequently shared those findings exclusively with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday.
"By the way, let me point out that it's entirely possible that Donald Trump sent this to me. Donald Trump has, over the years, leaked all sorts of things," said Johnston, founder of DCReport.org. Johnston won his Pulitzer in 2001 for his stories on the inequality of the tax code while he was with The New York Times.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On March 14 2017 22:05 uiCk wrote:
What's your opinion/knowledge on tabloids and tabloid style mediums VDM ?
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Contact Users: 1022 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 07:17
