Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many of them didn't use contraception [properly] in the first place?
Condoms, the pill, the foam, the rods, female condoms... so many options to choose from and so many of them free from liberal feminist groups and Planned Parenthood...
What ever is a young slut to do?
Ah yes, the anti-female rage. Blame her and shame her...drag your knuckles much writing this post, JB?
Nothing I said was anti-female. It was anti-hypocritical slut.
True feminists take responsibility for their own reproductive options, including both birth control and caring for their children. They don't feel a pathetic need to invert the old system of exploitation and sexual domination, nor do they feel a need to punish their sexual partner or rely upon a man's finances.
If it's her decision, then should a man who makes it clear he wants nothing to do with it be forced to pay for the child for the next 18 years?
A child is entitled to support from both parents.
So you oppose single mothers and adoption?Yes, because a man who can walk away is totally going to intimidate and be violent towards a woman more than a man who has half his check taken because of 'that ****' for 18 years
Are we supposed to be in the business of encouraging violence and intimidation against new moms?
Biology 101: you fail it
Do you understand that men can't gestate them? Sort of an empty offer don't you think ?
Of course i understand that. So the sole persons decision to carry or not, is the woman's. End of story.
Then the sole responsibility for the baby's birth, and therefore the sole responsibility for the baby...
This is a philosphical argument, JB, not a medical fact.
Fail. It's basic biology. Did you never take any science classes at all?
It is patently clear the zygote is not "separate" from the woman, JB.
Fail. It's basic biology. Did you never take any science classes at all?
It is patently clear the zygote is not "separate" from the woman, JB.
You fail biology forever. Is it stupidity or your own religion NeoFeminazi dogma that prevents you from admitting that we're dealing with two different organisms?
Arthur Koestler warned us about people like you.
Here, indeed, is the explanation of a phenomenon which has puzzled many observers. How could the intellectuals accept [this dogma]? ... The [dogmatic] novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of[their leaders], felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings... Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is useless to discuss any particular aspect of [the matter] with a[n adherent of dogma]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul. For it is very much easier to lay the oblation of spiritual pride on the alter of [political vision] than to snatch it back again
Clearly, the reason you keep injecting religion into this thread is because you cannot see past your own religion, which sees men as some sort of devil and woman as some perfect being free of obligations or responsibilities. Because you yourself cannot see the matter from any perspective other than that of your own religion, you assume that others here must be basing their own arguments and views on some religion as well. You are incapable of honest discourse of rational consideration of the matter. You are incapable even of imaging anyone else doing so.
You are exactly the sort of religious case Koestler warns us about. Until you have been forced in your life to see the reality of things and had time to realize your won disillusionment, there is no point continuing to discuss the matter with you. You must undergo the realization and evolution Koestler himself experienced. Only then will you be able to see the matter clearly, engage in honest thought for your own self, and discuss the matter in any meaningful way.
It is patently clear the zygote is not "separate" from the woman, JB.
You fail biology forever. Is it stupidity or your own religion NeoFeminazi dogma that prevents you from admitting that we're dealing with two different organisms?
Arthur Koestler warned us about people like you.
Here, indeed, is the explanation of a phenomenon which has puzzled many observers. How could the intellectuals accept [this dogma]? ... The [dogmatic] novice, subjecting his soul to the canon law of[their leaders], felt something of the release which Catholicism also brings... Once the renunciation has been made, the mind, instead of operating freely, becomes the servant of a higher and unquestioned purpose. To deny the truth is an act of service. This, of course, is why it is useless to discuss any particular aspect of [the matter] with a[n adherent of dogma]. Any genuine intellectual contact which you have with him involves a challenge to his fundamental faith, a struggle for his soul. For it is very much easier to lay the oblation of spiritual pride on the alter of [political vision] than to snatch it back again
Clearly, the reason you keep injecting religion into this thread is because you cannot see past your own religion, which sees men as some sort of devil and woman as some perfect being free of obligations or responsibilities. Because you yourself cannot see the matter from any perspective other than that of your own religion, you assume that others here must be basing their own arguments and views on some religion as well. You are incapable of honest discourse of rational consideration of the matter. You are incapable even of imaging anyone else doing so.
You are exactly the sort of religious case Koestler warns us about. Until you have been forced in your life to see the reality of things and had time to realize your won disillusionment, there is no point continuing to discuss the matter with you. You must undergo the realization and evolution Koestler himself experienced. Only then will you be able to see the matter clearly, engage in honest thought for your own self, and discuss the matter in any meaningful way.
You want to play at armchair psychoanalysis? I wonder what powers a man up to hate on women and try and eliminate their freedom. Why such a man needs the government's help to dominate his female partner. And why such a man views his own newborn baby as nothing but a hole to dump money into.
I wonder, but I do not speculate because doing so about someone I only know from a message board would be kinda sorta stupid.
I'm not the one that appealed to biology, dimwit.Biology 101: you fail it
Aren't you the one who argues that if she gets pregnant, that is her biological destiny? You are being irrational; next you'll tell me if she gets appendicitus, dying is her destiny. Safe abortion procedures and abortificants are readily available. The woman is not "condemned" to be pregnant against her will.
Ah yes, the anti-female rage. Blame her and shame her...drag your knuckles much writing this post, JB?
Nothing I said was anti-female. It was anti-hypocritical slut.
True feminists take responsibility for their own reproductive options, including both birth control and caring for their children. They don't feel a pathetic need to invert the old system of exploitation and sexual domination, nor do they feel a need to punish their sexual partner or rely upon a man's finances.
Hahahahahaha...I need a lecture on feminism from a man?
A child is entitled to support from both parents.
So you oppose single mothers and adoption?
Nothing I have written slams single moms or adoption....
So you don't?
It seems you don't really believe it when you say 'A child is entitled to support from both parents'. Nope, only from the father, and only if the woman wants the money.
Your true colours are showing.
If men can escape the burdens of financially supporting the children they father by means of an "agreement" with their mothers, yes, it will increase crimes against women.
Fail. Some states already allow a man to sign his rights away and it's already possible for a woman to not file for child support.
But we all know how you view men:
We all know who the devil is in your religion.
Some women are unfortunate enough to sleep with men with poor impulse control
Sounds like she has poor impulse control, too
I am also confused as to why you value a man's property right in his income more highly than a woman's fundamental civil rights to control her own body
The only woman's body we're talking about is that of the unborn woman you want to use as a weapon
I wonder what powers a man up to hate on women and try and eliminate their freedom.
Why such a man needs the government's help to dominate his female partner
Physically, there IS little responsibility for a man's behavior in this matter as far as bringing a pregnancy to term. That's just the way it is.Oh, I see what you are saying. Thanks.
I don't think it's so much sympathy for a man whore as it is acceptance that they exist. Shit happens and shitty persons are often behind it.
Why do you think there should be no consequence for men's irresponsible behaviour?
Let me explain the motive behind my POV:
I have a daughter, who is 8 years old. I have friends whose daughters are 14, 16, 18 years old.
My friends warn that SOON I will need to begin chasing away horn dogs.
There is little enough already to contradict irresponsible behaviour. Taking away the little responsibility represented by child support payments contradicts MUCH MORE the societal goal of making fathers responsible for their progeny.
I'm not so sure that having financially punitive laws in place is that much of a deterent to folks at a time when they are seriously hot and bothered.
Women do understand that they will not get pregnant if they don't have sex don't they ?
I believe that most do. Most men do, too.
Actually men don't get pregnant when they have sex however they may be forced to pay for their decision for the rest of their lives instead of a mere 9 months.
I believe that most do. Most men do, too.
Actually men don't get pregnant when they have sex however they may be forced to pay for their decision for the rest of their lives instead of a mere 9 months.
You raise a good point. I haven't had the time or the patience to read through all 12 pages of this thread, but I did read the first couple of pages. I didn't see anyone making the following point, so here goes:
Man and woman, not married, have fun and she gets knocked up. Man says, "Of course you are going to abort, right?" Woman says: "Hell no, Mojambo. I want this baby!" Man says: "OK, sweetie. You go right ahead - but it's on you. I will not be financially responsible for the child."
Forgetting about what society says on that point for the moment, let's take a look at this scenario. Is it fair to hold the man financially responsible for the child where the woman refuses to abort? I don't think it is. If the woman chooses to do something she does not have to do, something she can, in fact, reverse, and the man is asking her to do that, isn't that solely her decision then? Seems to me it is.
It is a decision she certainly should be free to make. But with that decision, should come responsibility. FULL responsibility.
