Real Men Hate Democrats [W:151]

[Hicup]

That doesn't include food, shelter, and other costs for the woman. The woman is still forced to work or come up with a financial means that the man is not responsible for DURING the pregnancy. You really should jump ship right now, because you have no clue.

Notwithstanding the absurdity of your narrow viewpoint, let's assume that what you're stating is often the scenario regarding men and women and pregnancy. I think if we took a straw poll right now, of all the men in the world, I suspect you'd have 100% of them gladly accept this "legal" responsibility if given the same choice over the fate of their unborn child. That is, if a man wants the child he pays for the pregnancy, even if poor ole mom who had nothing to do with the whole sex in the first place thingy didn't want to have the kid, well too bad, I'll pay for everything, and pop that sucker out and I'll even take the child off your hands and you don't owe me anything. Or, lets say the woman wants the kid, and the man doesn't, well too bad for you buddy, you should have thought about that before dipping your stick. Is that the kind of fairness you are ascribing too? Because if it is, then I agree. If both potential parents want the kid, then I don't see how any of this is even relevant? Likewise if they both want to abort, none of this is relevant.

Agreed?


Tim-

 

[American]

Answer mine, then I'll answer yours.

Weren't you being rhetorical?

 

[TheNextEra]

Notwithstanding the absurdity of your narrow viewpoint, let's assume that what you're stating is often the scenario regarding men and women and pregnancy. I think if we took a straw poll right now, of all the men in the world, I suspect you'd have 100% of them gladly accept this "legal" responsibility if given the same choice over the fate of their unborn child. That is, if a man wants to child he pays for the pregnancy, even if poor ole mom who had nothing to do with the whole sex in the first place thingy didn't want to have the kid, well too bad, I'll pay for everything, and pop that sucker out and I'll even take the child off your hands and you don't owe me anything. Or, lets say the woman wants to kid, and the man doesn't, well too bad for you buddy, you should have thought about that before dipping your stick. Is that the kind of fairness you are ascribing too? Because if it is, then I agree. If both potential parents want the kid, then I don't see how any of this is even relevant?

Agreed?


Tim-

Nope, I want it reversed actually. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, tough **** the man doesn't get it. However, if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man doesn't have to be financially responsible for the kid but loses immediate parenting rights forever to the child.

However, if the man was financially responsible for the child and mother DURING the pregnancy fully I'd accept that as a compromise.

 

[Hicup]

Nope, I want it reversed actually. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, tough **** the man doesn't get it. However, if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man doesn't have to be financially responsible for the kid but loses immediate parenting rights forever to the child.

However, if the man was financially responsible for the child and mother DURING the pregnancy fully I'd accept that as a compromise.

But that's not fair. I thought you wanted to be fair?

Tim-

 

[TheNextEra]

But that's not fair. I thought you wanted to be fair?

Tim-

How is it not fair? The woman gets to decide what happens to HER body. And if the man doesn't want the kid, he doesn't have to pay for it. That is fair.

 

[Hicup]

How is it not fair? The woman gets to decide what happens to HER body. And if the man doesn't want the kid, he doesn't have to pay for it. That is fair.

If a women doesn't want to have a kid then the choices begin during sex, not after. It is HER responsibility to protect herself from unwanted pregnancy. Same thing with the man, he can decide during sex to protect himself. However, in the event that both were not thinking at the time, then the responsibility now shifts to a humane society which sets laws to protect the unborn human child. If one of the potential parents wants the kid, then they society should take that as a vote 2 against 1 that the kid should be born. Assuming of course that an unborn child would want to be born, and either mother or father also want it that way. Now, if mom doesn't want it, too bad, Dad will pay for the pregnancy and then take the child when born, and Mom has nothing to do with it thereafter. Conversely, if Mom wants the kid and Dad doesn't he still pays for the pregnancy but after he waives his rights as father after it is born. If he changes his mind, then he is responsible and is granted equal access, but he doesn't get to waffle. he doesn't get to change his mind years down the road, neither does Mom.

Worldwide the WHO some years ago if memory serves said that death by pregnancy was about 1.5%, in the United States it is statistically zero, with some exception to home birthing and the like. Access to medical care and a hospital make it virtually impossible to die from pregnancy these days, so that argument doesn't fly in the face of reasonable debate with regard to fairness, and it's my body crap.


Tim-

 

[TheNextEra]

If a women doesn't want to have a kid then the choices begin during sex, not after. It is HER responsibility to protect herself from unwanted pregnancy. Same thing with the man, he can decide during sex to protect himself. However, in the event that both were not thinking at the time, then the responsibility now shifts to a humane society which sets laws to protect the unborn human child. If one of the potential parents wants the kid, then they society should take that as a vote 2 against 1 that the kid should be born. Assuming of course that an unborn child would want to be born, and either mother or father also want it that way. Now, if mom doesn't want it, too bad, Dad will pay for the pregnancy and then take the child when born, and Mom has nothing to do with it thereafter. Conversely, if Mom wants the kid and Dad doesn't he still pays for the pregnancy but after he waives his rights as father after it is born. If he changes his mind, then he is responsible and is granted equal access, but he doesn't get to waffle. he doesn't get to change his mind years down the road, neither does Mom.

Worldwide the WHO some years ago if memory serves said that death by pregnancy was about 1.5%, in the United States it is statistically zero, with some exception to home birthing and the like. Access to medical care and a hospital make it virtually impossible to die from pregnancy these days, so that argument doesn't fly in the face of reasonable debate with regard to fairness, and it's my body crap.


Tim-

Well don't agree with what you said as I think a woman has the right to her own body at ANY point in her adult life, however, I would view what you said as a compromise. So now all we need is pro-lifers, along with their pro-life policy, to put in legislation making the man legally financially responsible for the child DURING pregnancy as well.

When that happens let me know. I won't hold my breath for the majority of pro-life lawmakers to make legislation making the man legally responsible for the child and mother during pregnancy anytime soon.

As long as pro-lifers continue to ONLY go after the woman legally, I will continue to side with the woman.

 

[Mason66]

wrong? So the man is LEGALLY obligated to financially support the woman DURING pregnancy? Please cite that law if I'm wrong. Otherwise YOU are flat out wrong.

Why would the woman have to stop working during the pregnancy?

 

[Mason66]

That doesn't include food, shelter, and other costs for the woman. The woman is still forced to work or come up with a financial means that the man is not responsible for DURING the pregnancy. You really should jump ship right now, because you have no clue.

She would have had those costs whether she was pregnant or not, so why would the man be required to pay them for her?

 

[WCH]

First of all child-support goes BOTH ways, guess you never heard of THAT. BOTH the woman and the man are financially obligated to the child. Yes, it takes two to tango, but the man doesn't have ANY legal obligation to the woman or the child DURING pregnancy, yet you and other pro-lifers want the woman to be held LEGALLY obligated. Like you said it takes TWO to tango. When you and other pro-lifers start including the man in the financial equation DURING the pregnancy, then maybe you have a leg to stand on.

I take care of mine. That's all an individual can do

 

[TheNextEra]

I take care of mine. That's all an individual can do

Ah but you want to FORCE a woman to do something, but not force the man to do something. Got it.

 

[TheNextEra]

She would have had those costs whether she was pregnant or not, so why would the man be required to pay them for her?

Nope, being pregnant means different food, different strains, different hours, etc. Again, pro-lifers are more interested in holding a woman responsible legally, but not the man.

 

[Hicup]

Well don't agree with what you said as I think a woman has the right to her own body at ANY point in her adult life, however, I would view what you said as a compromise. So now all we need is pro-lifers, along with their pro-life policy, to put in legislation making the man legally financially responsible for the child DURING pregnancy as well.

When that happens let me know. I won't hold my breath for the majority of pro-life lawmakers to make legislation making the man legally responsible for the child and mother during pregnancy anytime soon.

As long as pro-lifers continue to ONLY go after the woman legally, I will continue to side with the woman.

I think the biggest hurdle is pro-choicer, NOT pro-lifers. Pro-lifers, agreed (And I am one by the way) tend to favor life regardless, with some notable exceptions of course. It isn't about the money for us, generally, but I think many of us would become pro-choice if pro-choice wasn't merely code for the women choice only.


Tim-

 

[Mason66]

Nope, being pregnant means different food, different strains, different hours, etc. Again, pro-lifers are more interested in holding a woman responsible legally, but not the man.

No it doesn't.

The last tri-mester may mean a few changes, but all during the pregnancy, it is the same.

 

[TheNextEra]

I think the biggest hurdle is pro-choicer, NOT pro-lifers. Pro-lifers, agreed (And I am one by the way) tend to favor life regardless, with some notable exceptions of course. It isn't about the money for us, generally, but I think many of us would become pro-choice if pro-choice wasn't merely code for the women choice only.


Tim-

If that were true than every piece of legislation pro-lifers put out would include the man as well for legal obligation. They don't, they want to only legally make the woman responsible during the pregnancy which is wrong. As it is said, it takes two to tango, but pro-lifers are only making the woman legally obligated during the pregnancy.

 

[TheNextEra]

No it doesn't.

The last tri-mester may mean a few changes, but all during the pregnancy, it is the same.

Yeah, go tell a pregnant woman that and see if she buys it. Me, I've seen it with my wife. There are plenty of life-altering changes right from a couple of weeks.

 

[Mason66]

Yeah, go tell a pregnant woman that and see if she buys it. Me, I've seen it with my wife. There are plenty of life-altering changes right from a couple of weeks.

And she can handle all of that.

Why do you think the man is 100% responsible to pay for her like she is a delicate flower during the pregnancy?

If she has to change her food, then instead of buying the food she was buying, she buys other food. No change.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Ahhh blogs quoted as fact... gotta love the CON game... :roll:

If we use the Pew Research results we see it isn't 'real' men, as defined by a few hacks, but rather OLD men who flock to the GOP. The regressive vision the GOP paints waxes nostalgic for many older Americans.

But if we look at the age breakdown not until you hit the middle age group does the GOP gain male votes over the Dems.

The GOP has long courted regressive voters while the Dems court progressive voters, the gender gap has been there as has the age gap.

But I guess a few ardent partisans will spin and spin the facts until they line up the way a few regressive men want. eace

Ageism as well as sexism and racism.

Great party you have there.

BTW? I have waited six years for this....what has been said to me a thousand times...

The election is over. You lost.

Whet difference, at this point, does it make whether they were old or young...and I suspect you and I as well as most men would have an astonishingly different definition of "real men".

The men I know, respect and hang with do not get an instant "tingly feeling down my leg" and a severe six year long man crush on a wanna-be rock star whose only real accomplishment was getting rich without ever having had a real, private sector have to produce job.

I swear, I expected at times to see Democrat 'men" hurling their panties at this guy like a rock band

 

[Fearandloathing]

Democrats have a terrible problem with men. Men voted for Republicans by a margin of 14% in the last election.

Funny that the news media never talks about that. They only seem to talk about the deficit that Republicans have among women, which in this last election was 5%, not enough to overcome the advantage that Republicans have with men.

Democrats worked hard at their sex baiting strategy, but it backfired on them. It motivated Republican women to turn out in opposition, and it pissed some of the men off.



Instapundit » Blog Archive » WHEN SEX-BAITING BACKFIRES: “Democrats worked hard to turn out women, but the strategy helped motiv…

Without over analysis of the demographics to disprove the finding, I would say that this reflects the party having become women first. Their policies are those that would resonate with women, by design, they don't win without blacks, youth, women and fanatic union members, like socialist parties across the wolrd they are a collection of botique votes.

By structuring policy aimed at interest groups and botique voters, they de-emphasized what men want, so they overwhelimingly move to the party that makes sense to them.

 

[TheNextEra]

And she can handle all of that.

Why do you think the man is 100% responsible to pay for her like she is a delicate flower during the pregnancy?

If she has to change her food, then instead of buying the food she was buying, she buys other food. No change.

You don't think there is a cost increase? You don't think the level of physical effort needed changes for the woman? This is what I mean, you expect her to live her day with those physical and mental changes as though nothing has changed and you don't hold the man responsible for that legally.

 

[rathi]

Without over analysis of the demographics to disprove the finding, I would say that this reflects the party having become women first. Their policies are those that would resonate with women, by design, they don't win without blacks, youth, women and fanatic union members, like socialist parties across the wolrd they are a collection of botique votes.

By structuring policy aimed at interest groups and botique voters, they de-emphasized what men want, so they overwhelimingly move to the party that makes sense to them.

Old white men are literally the most narcissistic and self absorbed group on the planet. People who aren't white men make up the majority of people in American society, but you still think that appealing them is "botique" votes. I know you believe that your gender and skin color entitles to sole control of government, but you'd think that the demographic math would be more obvious.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Old white men are literally the most narcissistic and self absorbed group on the planet. People who aren't white men make up the majority of people in American society, but you still think that appealing them is "botique" votes. I know you believe that your gender and skin color entitles to sole control of government, but you'd think that the demographic math would be more obvious.

Source?

I suspect you have several sociological and anthopological studies to back that up...

and, to paraphrase your new great hope, Hillary, what difference, at this point, does it make?

You know you lost right? You know that all the posturing, all the rabid claims the dems would conquer the Republicans, yadda, yadda, yadda, has been exposed as complete bull**** floating on a cloud of methane gas.

 

[celticwar17]

Old white men are literally the most narcissistic and self absorbed group on the planet. People who aren't white men make up the majority of people in American society, but you still think that appealing them is "botique" votes. I know you believe that your gender and skin color entitles to sole control of government, but you'd think that the demographic math would be more obvious.

wow, that sounded racist...
tell us how you really feel

 

[blaxshep]

Old white men are literally the most narcissistic and self absorbed group on the planet. People who aren't white men make up the majority of people in American society, but you still think that appealing them is "botique" votes. I know you believe that your gender and skin color entitles to sole control of government, but you'd think that the demographic math would be more obvious.

Given that Old White men are the primary providers for the entitlement recipients that are not Old White men I fail to see your hatred of the hand that feeds you. I have often wondered when the majority of people not Old and White assume control by nature of there masses will they then extend the same entitlements down to those they once depended on? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

 

[rathi]

Given that Old White men are the primary providers for the entitlement recipients that are not Old White men I fail to see your hatred of the hand that feeds you. I have often wondered when the majority of people not Old and White assume control by nature of there masses will they then extend the same entitlements down to those they once depended on? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

Yes, that is why our government has managed to pay down the debt and create a buffer for the massive influx of social security and medicare recipients. Those old white guys would never run up the deficit, raid the money that was supposed to pay for their entitlements during old age and then stick the next generation with the check.