Vastator
Platinum Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 22,764
- 10,392
The burden on the woman is no greater than the man, for your simply declaring to be so.Daft has nothing to do with it. Maybe the man didn’t want to father her child. Maybe he didn’t want his existing children to have bastard siblings. Maybe cutting the deceitful woman a check every month for 20 years diminishes his quality of life, and the quality of life for his children that he intended to sire. And all of this is granting you carte Blanche that the deceiving woman is allowed to keep the child as opposed to the man getting custody if he wants it. That is a whole nother argument...Says you.The profit she takes in from her misdeed is hardly the crux of the matter. Merely one aspect.
I think what he's getting at is that it's a mite more intrusive to impregnate a woman by lying than for her to get impregnated by lying.
So you would claim that writing a check every month for 20 years is more intrusive than raising a baby to toddler to school student? Surely you are not that daft.
In short who are you to place a value of her inconvenience above his; especially when he was defrauded. Looks like “equality mobile” is sputtering out...
Not at all. I have said every time you brought it up that I am fine with both being prosecuted. I am simply saying that, all things being equal, the greater burden is on the woman. And all the man has to do to prevent it is wear a condom. Which considering the rampant STDs out there, is a good idea anyway.