Is this hypocritical?

[KevinKohler]

:roll:

Never mind. I think you just want to throw a pity party for all men that we dare have to take responsibility for knocking a woman up.

Not at all. It's about equality.



Women want to be equal, I'm just fighting the good fight to make it so.

 

[KevinKohler]

My wife also had C-sections for both kids. I'm still most grateful I did not have to go through that. Not just the birth itself, but the preceding 6 months or so. eace

I often tell my wife that if it were up to men to go through that ****, culminating in BIRTH....the species would have died out LOOOOOONG ago.


My wife PUKED, every morning, after waking up, for 3 entire months.


No way, bra.








No way.

 

[Removable Mind]

Morality is not enforceable by law, as it's completely relative.


To expound, just because a woman doesn't, morally, want to get an abortion, is no excuse to FORCE her baby daddy to fund the life of the child. He cannot be expected to take responsibility for her morals.

Nor her for laws created by the state. The State is forcing the man to take responsibility on behalf of the child AND the taxpayers. The State has legal interest in both.

 

[KevinKohler]

In terms of protecting the taxpayers it would make more sense to force women to abort pregnancies they can't afford. That way the child is never a problem to begin with.

Just sayin'.

I was thinking it.....






...but didn't want to say it, lol.

 

[roughdraft274]

Not at all. It's about equality.



Women want to be equal, I'm just fighting the good fight to make it so.

If a woman gives birth she isn't able to hand the baby to the dad and not be responsible for the baby at all unless they both agree to it. The man could take her to court and force her to pay child support if she tried that.

If a woman gives birth she can force the guy to pay child support.

The current setup is head over heals better than the destructive and incredibly stupid setup that you are suggesting, where a man has no responsibility for a child he creates.

And saying that it's fair because the woman gets to choose what happens with her body is nothing but an ignorant cop-out.

 

[KevinKohler]

Nor her for laws created by the state. The State is forcing the man to take responsibility on behalf of the child AND the taxpayers. The State has legal interest in both.

No, the state is forcing the man to take responsibility for the child on behalf of the mother.


She, if you'll recall, is the only one that actually WANTED, CHOSE, to go through with the pregnancy, not the child, nor the taxpayers.

 

[KevinKohler]

If a woman gives birth she isn't able to hand the baby to the dad and not be responsible for the baby at all unless they both agree to it. The man could take her to court and force her to pay child support if she tried that.

If a woman gives birth she can force the guy to pay child support.

The current setup is head over heals better than the destructive and incredibly stupid setup that you are suggesting, where a man has no responsibility for a child he creates.

And saying that it's fair because the woman gets to choose what happens with her body is nothing but an ignorant cop-out.

Ah, now we've finally gotten to it, eh? At least now we're all being honest. It's not about the kids. It's not about the mothers.


It's about the overall well being of the society. Well, you kinda lose there, too.


Let's be honest. There are quite a few women who are, this year, going to go through with a pregnancy, not because they want the child, and not because they think they'll be good parents, but because it will mean another 200$ per week in child support. Take this away, and you'd be amazed at how quickly abortion all of a sudden becomes Plan A. There are a LOT of women who are going to go through with pregnancy this year, IN SPITE of knowing that they can't REALLY afford it, because they BELIEVE that they will be able to extort money from someone to give them a hand. Take that option away, and they, too, will make a more responsible decision, and have an abortion.

What does this mean? It means...fewer children from a demographic of people who are PROVEN to be awful parents, poor contributors to society, and in short, a financial drain on our tax coffers.

Amazing the results we would get by applying financial force to making people make responsible decisions.

 

[tres borrachos]

Would you not agree that women have been second class citizens for the majority of human history?

Do you think that that happened by chance? That it was on a coin flip that men just happened to be the ones in charge? Or do you think it was down to biological realities?

At the end of the day, such biological realities necessitate that we make concessions so that we can be equal. Deciding on what those concessions should be is not easy. 'Hypocritical' things such as the argument brought up in the OP are just parts of that dialogue.

Pissed off that you are 'forced' to pay child support? Well biological realities mean women are physically weaker, bleed out of their vagina once a month and have to carry babies to term, leaving them - in the majority of cases - unable to support themselves for the majority of the pregnancy, and potentially for years after that. Suck it up.

Wut? I worked right until the days before my scheduled C-sections for each of my 3 kids. What a crock of **** your post is. Most women are perfectly capable of jogging, playing sports, working, whatever right up until birth.

 

[tres borrachos]

Perhaps that is true in your own household...but you cannot - must not - judge all households by what may or may not be true in your own household. The old saying, "can't see the forest for the trees" applies.

I didn't say I was judging anyone else. You were the one who said that women were the better or stronger or whatever parents. You made a blanket statement and I pointed out that it didn't apply to my situation.

 

[Nilly]

Wut? I worked right until the days before my scheduled C-sections for each of my 3 kids. What a crock of **** your post is. Most women are perfectly capable of jogging, playing sports, working, whatever right up until birth.

You're correct, that was a mistake to say on my part. What I should have said is that compared to men women are physically disadvantaged for a large part of the pregnancy. Not only that but they are operating at a higher risk to themselves than men are during the majority of pregnancy, with the possibility of complications arising etc.

It really doesn't need to be said, biologically speaking the mans role is over after 1 night, whilst the woman's role is over after 9 months (minimum). That's the biological imbalance I'm making reference to.

 

[tres borrachos]

You're correct, that was a mistake to say on my part. What I should have said is that compared to men women are physically disadvantaged for a large part of the pregnancy. Not only that but they are operating at a higher risk to themselves than men are during the majority of pregnancy, with the possibility of complications arising etc.

It really doesn't need to be said, biologically speaking the mans role is over after 1 night, whilst the woman's role is over after 9 months (minimum). That's the biological imbalance I'm making reference to.

Biologically speaking a man's role is over after 1 night, correct. But pregnancy for the most part is not the horrific experience a lot of posters make it out to be. I look back on the days I was pregnant fondly. I never felt better and I was never treated better by everyone, from my friends, husband, family, co-workers, even complete strangers.

Mother Nature has set it up that the females carry the babies, and not the males. That's the case with horses and dogs and cats and cows and on and on and on. It really isn't such a bad thing. And not so long ago women died in childbirth all the time, from disease or infection or inability to deliver (which was actually the case with me, hence the C-sections), and very often the babies died with the mothers. It's amazing how far we've come. OBs last I heard carried the 2nd highest insurance rate, behind anesthesiologists. They are very very careful with both patients - mom and future offspring in utero.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, the state is forcing the man to take responsibility for the child on behalf of the mother.


She, if you'll recall, is the only one that actually WANTED, CHOSE, to go through with the pregnancy, not the child, nor the taxpayers.

Tell the State that.

The State has an interest in EVERYBODY from the stage of "viable fetus up to the death of any born person".

And, by the way, it's not the woman's problem if the man can't accept her moral stance. Especially when they're support by law, which she didn't create.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It helps to discuss how each other's response will be if an unwanted pregnancy occurs and there's tons of people who don't have that discussion. Why? It gets in the way of having a really feel good orgasm.

And yes, people can lie. But that's not an honest excuse for not having "the discussion" prior to having sex.

 

[roughdraft274]

Ah, now we've finally gotten to it, eh? At least now we're all being honest. It's not about the kids. It's not about the mothers.

It's about the overall well being of the society. Well, you kinda lose there, too.

It's about the kids. It's about the mothers. It's about society.

To suggest that I've said otherwise when I haven't is dishonest.

This is all very simple. If you knowingly took part in the action that caused something, then you are at least partly responsible.

 

[Henrin]

It's about the kids. It's about the mothers. It's about society.

To suggest that I've said otherwise when I haven't is dishonest.

This is all very simple. If you knowingly took part in the action that caused something, then you are at least partly responsible.

Is this a moral responsibility?

 

[roughdraft274]

Is this a moral responsibility?

I would think so.

 

[Henrin]

I would think so.

Ok. I actually think government imposed child support is immoral and that society might very well be better served if women weren't assured that they could force the man to go along with their decision.

 

[roughdraft274]

Ok. I actually think government imposed child support is immoral and that society might very well be better served if women weren't assured that they could force the man to go along with their decision.

That's insane. If you are the father, you are responsible. As you would be for anything else you helped cause.

 

[joG]

That's insane. If you are the father, you are responsible. As you would be for anything else you helped cause.

If the father had an equal say concerning abortion, I would fully agree with you.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ah, now we've finally gotten to it, eh? At least now we're all being honest. It's not about the kids. It's not about the mothers.


It's about the overall well being of the society. Well, you kinda lose there, too.


Let's be honest. There are quite a few women who are, this year, going to go through with a pregnancy, not because they want the child, and not because they think they'll be good parents, but because it will mean another 200$ per week in child support. Take this away, and you'd be amazed at how quickly abortion all of a sudden becomes Plan A. There are a LOT of women who are going to go through with pregnancy this year, IN SPITE of knowing that they can't REALLY afford it, because they BELIEVE that they will be able to extort money from someone to give them a hand. Take that option away, and they, too, will make a more responsible decision, and have an abortion.

What does this mean? It means...fewer children from a demographic of people who are PROVEN to be awful parents, poor contributors to society, and in short, a financial drain on our tax coffers.

Amazing the results we would get by applying financial force to making people make responsible decisions.

Not to mention how inflexible the child support system is, when it comes to inability to pay.

Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed employee in Kuwait from North Carolina, was captured by Iraqis and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage. Sherrill was arrested the night after his release for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage.

Clarence Brandley, a Texas high school janitor, was wrongly convicted in 1980 of murder.[13] After spending many years in prison and on death row,[14] he was released in 1990 and he then sued the state of Texas for wrongful imprisonment in 1993.[15] The state then responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.[10][11] Dianna Thompson of The American Coalition of Fathers and Children told the Houston Chronicle that federal law makes it illegal for states to forgive child support payments regardless of circumstance.[16] Michael McCormick, of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children said, concerning child support payments, "I'm not aware of any state where it says a wrongly convicted individual is relieved of their obligation."[17] Despite paying child support every month since his release via wage garnishment, Brandley's child support total reached $73,000 in 2003, when a judge reduced his total to $22,000; however, this amount is still more than triple the $7,000 in back child support Brandley owed at the time of his arrest in 1980.[15] Recently, Brandley lost his job in the economic downturn in 2008; he has since lost his car and house as the child support bills and interest keep coming.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

 

[roughdraft274]

If the father had an equal say concerning abortion, I would fully agree with you.

It's not his body. It's hers. So he doesn't get a say.

He doesn't get to skirt his responsibility just because the mother has bodily autonomy.

 

[joG]

It's not his body. It's hers. So he doesn't get a say.

He doesn't get to skirt his responsibility just because the mother has bodily autonomy.

I the girl decides to keep the kid, though, he would pay for the abortion? He has offered remedy and should have no more to do with it, if he so wants.

 

[Removable Mind]

That's insane. If you are the father, you are responsible. As you would be for anything else you helped cause.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding Henrin's thinking. He subscribes to: Men should have the full legal ability to impregnate as many women they can muster having a sexual relationship with - and declare that they have zero responsibility for any offspring that might result from those sexual relationships. His whole train of this thinking regarding government and their role in society will leave you like ---->>>> :shock:

 

[roughdraft274]

I the girl decides to keep the kid, though, he would pay for the abortion? He has offered remedy and should have no more to do with it, if he so wants.

That's not a remedy. It's her body and she has full decision with what happens with it. Period.

If the baby is born, they are both on the hook for taking care of it. If the baby isn't born, neither of them are.

 

[JayDubya]

It's not his body. It's hers. So he doesn't get a say.

He doesn't get to skirt his responsibility just because the mother has bodily autonomy.

Next time, just say that you hate men. It's more succinct.

 

[Henrin]

That's insane. If you are the father, you are responsible. As you would be for anything else you helped cause.

No it's not. No one but the man himself has a right to his labor and property. Moral responsibilities are not legal responsibilities, and I don't need to give up my position because you decided to bring one of them up. Instead of imposing on men because women carried a child to term they couldn't afford after having sex with a man they shouldn't have had sex with, it would make more sense to encourage women to make better choices and not sleep with men that won't take care of their children.