Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 7/26/2013 3:59:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2013 4:01:33 PM EST by CrazyWhiteGuy]
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:00:33 PM EST


It has nothing to do with money.



Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:08:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:13:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:14:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrMark:

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrMark:
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.





Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:16:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote



Yep.
I'm paying child support and alimony. I'd happily give everything I can ever earn for my boys lives.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:16:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:18:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2013 4:19:48 PM EST by CuttingEdges]
It has doomed the right, as has all of their moral meddling.

ETA: I don't care if people want to abort their babies anymore, it's a fight that can't be won and there are so many more important issues to address.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:18:20 PM EST
Life isn't fair. The soon that is understood, the sooner more meaningful conversations may be had.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:18:59 PM EST
We wouldn't have these problems if guys simply dumped their load in her ass, on her face, stomach, tits, etc.

Guys... do yourselves a favor and pull out when the time is right.

This is a public service message brought to you by someone who has been there... done that.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:19:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

FPNI
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:19:13 PM EST
Murder. Child Support. Two different things dude.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:22:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LoginName:
We wouldn't have these problems if guys simply dumped their load in her ass, on her face, stomach, tits, etc.

Guys... do yourselves a favor and pull out when the time is right.

This is a public service message brought to you by someone who has been there... done that.
View Quote



Brutally honest...


Well put!
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:23:25 PM EST
Change the courts so men get a fairer shake. It's clear from reading the threads here that you guys can sometimes get screwed over royally.

Make DNA paternity tests routine and mandatory with every new baby born.

Other than that, I have no answers.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:24:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CuttingEdges:
It has doomed the right, as has all of their moral meddling.

ETA: I don't care if people want to abort their babies anymore, it's a fight that can't be won and there are so many more important issues to address.
View Quote



Important to who, precisely? Besides you, that is ...
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:26:13 PM EST
My answer is “No,” for scientific reasons. Also for sociological reasons and or moral reasons.

Simply put, it’s a biological fact that life a human life beings at conception. Arguing this point makes you eighty seven times as scientifically illiterate as a guy who thinks Noah rode his brontosaurs to the ark every day when he was building it.

Granted, the scientific fact that life begins at conception does not mean that personhood beings at conception. But “personhood” is a philosophical/religious concept, it is not something science can really determine. Oh, science can tell you when the heart starts beating, when brain activity starts, and even at what point a human can experience pain. But science has not mechanism to determine personhood.

So, someone’s religion/philosophy of life might tell them that life begins at birth and that’s cool. But we are living under the presumption by many in our society that religious beliefs have no place in politics and should not be coded into law. This is, of course, absurd. It’s so absurd that the people who claim to believe that nonsense only invoke the argument when they don’t get their way on an issue. Abortion is a great example. Science says human life begins at conception, therefore a fetus should have the legal protections of a human being.

It’s the abortion supporters who bring their religion/philosophy of life into the argument. What is their religion? Mostly it’s narcissism and self interest. Pro abortionists ultimately end up arguing that a baby is inconvenient and therefore can be killed for the convenience of the parents or society.

The only reason it seems like anti abortion is purely religious is that Christians (and some other religions) are one of the few places where you will find people who have not given into the cult of self interest.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:27:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:



Important to who, precisely? Besides you, that is ...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By CuttingEdges:
It has doomed the right, as has all of their moral meddling.

ETA: I don't care if people want to abort their babies anymore, it's a fight that can't be won and there are so many more important issues to address.



Important to who, precisely? Besides you, that is ...


Anyone who isn't an idiot, let's sacrifice our economy and liberty to fight a losing battle against abortion.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:27:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2013 4:30:30 PM EST by 96Ag]
I wouldn't change my stance on abortion.

ETA - really wasn't thinking about what I was typing.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:28:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:30:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote



I have three kids with my ex wife and basically court ordered to pay half of my income to her. I stuck my dick in the crazy, no one forced me to do it. I love my kids more then life itself and I will continue to be a responsible and loving father long after my last child support payment 10 years from now.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:30:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LoginName:
We wouldn't have these problems if guys simply dumped their load in her ass, on her face, stomach, tits, etc.

Guys... do yourselves a favor and pull out when the time is right.

This is a public service message brought to you by someone who has been there... done that.
View Quote


That's where I am. Ass or mouth. I'm just tried of hearing "war on women" and having it actually work
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:31:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LoginName:
We wouldn't have these problems if guys simply dumped their load in her ass, on her face, stomach, tits, etc.

Guys... do yourselves a favor and pull out when the time is right.

This is a public service message brought to you by someone who has been there... done that.
View Quote


Ah, the "Rhythm Method"

People who use this method of birth control are frequently referred to as "Parents"

Myself included.

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:33:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?

View Quote

A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:34:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 96Ag:
I wouldn't change my stance on abortion.

ETA - really wasn't thinking about what I was typing.
View Quote



I do believe that if women were equal there would be no financial burden when a man abdicates his parental rights.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:39:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:39:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Thuban:
My answer is "No,” for scientific reasons. Also for sociological reasons and or moral reasons.

Simply put, it’s a biological fact that life a human life beings at conception. Arguing this point makes you eighty seven times as scientifically illiterate as a guy who thinks Noah rode his brontosaurs to the ark every day when he was building it.

Granted, the scientific fact that life begins at conception does not mean that personhood beings at conception. But "personhood” is a philosophical/religious concept, it is not something science can really determine. Oh, science can tell you when the heart starts beating, when brain activity starts, and even at what point a human can experience pain. But science has not mechanism to determine personhood.

So, someone’s religion/philosophy of life might tell them that life begins at birth and that’s cool. But we are living under the presumption by many in our society that religious beliefs have no place in politics and should not be coded into law. This is, of course, absurd. It’s so absurd that the people who claim to believe that nonsense only invoke the argument when they don’t get their way on an issue. Abortion is a great example. Science says human life begins at conception, therefore a fetus should have the legal protections of a human being.

It’s the abortion supporters who bring their religion/philosophy of life into the argument. What is their religion? Mostly it’s narcissism and self interest. Pro abortionists ultimately end up arguing that a baby is inconvenient and therefore can be killed for the convenience of the parents or society.

The only reason it seems like anti abortion is purely religious is that Christians (and some other religions) are one of the few places where you will find people who have not given into the cult of self interest.
View Quote
Well said.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:39:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2013 4:41:49 PM EST by CrazyWhiteGuy]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?


A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?


Well for one, I worked a nursing home for four years and has plenty of old people tell me they wanted to die.

I'm not saying kill them for financial reasons, I'm saying eliminate finance from the equation.

Like it or not the shit is legal in this country, and right now the male is owned by the female. That doesn't make sense.



Also, I would never talk someone I knocked up into an abortion - but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me. I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:41:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Thuban:
My answer is “No,” for scientific reasons. Also for sociological reasons and or moral reasons.

Simply put, it’s a biological fact that life a human life beings at conception. Arguing this point makes you eighty seven times as scientifically illiterate as a guy who thinks Noah rode his brontosaurs to the ark every day when he was building it.

Granted, the scientific fact that life begins at conception does not mean that personhood beings at conception. But “personhood” is a philosophical/religious concept, it is not something science can really determine. Oh, science can tell you when the heart starts beating, when brain activity starts, and even at what point a human can experience pain. But science has not mechanism to determine personhood.

So, someone’s religion/philosophy of life might tell them that life begins at birth and that’s cool. But we are living under the presumption by many in our society that religious beliefs have no place in politics and should not be coded into law. This is, of course, absurd. It’s so absurd that the people who claim to believe that nonsense only invoke the argument when they don’t get their way on an issue. Abortion is a great example. Science says human life begins at conception, therefore a fetus should have the legal protections of a human being.

It’s the abortion supporters who bring their religion/philosophy of life into the argument. What is their religion? Mostly it’s narcissism and self interest. Pro abortionists ultimately end up arguing that a baby is inconvenient and therefore can be killed for the convenience of the parents or society.

The only reason it seems like anti abortion is purely religious is that Christians (and some other religions) are one of the few places where you will find people who have not given into the cult of self interest.
View Quote


Pretty well thought out and logical argument. You sure that belongs in GD?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:42:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Thuban:
My answer is “No,” for scientific reasons. Also for sociological reasons and or moral reasons.

Simply put, it’s a biological fact that life a human life beings at conception. Arguing this point makes you eighty seven times as scientifically illiterate as a guy who thinks Noah rode his brontosaurs to the ark every day when he was building it.

Granted, the scientific fact that life begins at conception does not mean that personhood beings at conception. But “personhood” is a philosophical/religious concept, it is not something science can really determine. Oh, science can tell you when the heart starts beating, when brain activity starts, and even at what point a human can experience pain. But science has not mechanism to determine personhood.

So, someone’s religion/philosophy of life might tell them that life begins at birth and that’s cool. But we are living under the presumption by many in our society that religious beliefs have no place in politics and should not be coded into law. This is, of course, absurd. It’s so absurd that the people who claim to believe that nonsense only invoke the argument when they don’t get their way on an issue. Abortion is a great example. Science says human life begins at conception, therefore a fetus should have the legal protections of a human being.

It’s the abortion supporters who bring their religion/philosophy of life into the argument. What is their religion? Mostly it’s narcissism and self interest. Pro abortionists ultimately end up arguing that a baby is inconvenient and therefore can be killed for the convenience of the parents or society.

The only reason it seems like anti abortion is purely religious is that Christians (and some other religions) are one of the few places where you will find people who have not given into the cult of self interest.
View Quote


I like that
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:43:52 PM EST
I agree with this- if a woman has a choice the man should be able to as well. That being said, my pro-choice thoughts evaporated when my first child was born.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:54:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
- but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me.

I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.
View Quote



Wat?




Link Posted: 7/26/2013 4:56:11 PM EST
When the biological father has to sign off on whether he wants to keep and raise the child or not before the abortion takes place is when I will believe the mother of a child born out of wedlock needs to be compensated with "child support". (Equal protection under the Law)

If the parents are married (including common law) child support is due and right.

However for all the single "its my body" ladies out there. Put your money where your mouth is and take full responsibility for the child you are carrying.

Full responsibility for its life or death.




Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:01:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.

Opinions?

View Quote
Who else are you willing to kill for a buck?


Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:01:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.


View Quote



Or the man.


Or the woman.


Or religion.


What kind of sick asshole rabidly fights for the "right" to kill her baby?




Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:03:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:


Well for one, I worked a nursing home for four years and has plenty of old people tell me they wanted to die.

I'm not saying kill them for financial reasons, I'm saying eliminate finance from the equation.

Like it or not the shit is legal in this country, and right now the male is owned by the female. That doesn't make sense.



Also, I would never talk someone I knocked up into an abortion - but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me. I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?


A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?


Well for one, I worked a nursing home for four years and has plenty of old people tell me they wanted to die.

I'm not saying kill them for financial reasons, I'm saying eliminate finance from the equation.

Like it or not the shit is legal in this country, and right now the male is owned by the female. That doesn't make sense.



Also, I would never talk someone I knocked up into an abortion - but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me. I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.


You had a say in the matter when you decided to stick it in. It's amazing the kind of mentalities the sexual revolution has engendered. Certainly nothing positive for society.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:05:53 PM EST
pro choice here.

it has nothing to do with money.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:09:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bud7h7:

What kind of sick asshole rabidly fights for the "right" to kill her baby?

View Quote



Why do you hate women?


Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:09:27 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Enlightenme556:



Wat?




View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Enlightenme556:
- but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me.

I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.



Wat?







I grew up with several childhood friends who's fathers lived like shit so they could afford the amount of money it took to visit their otherwise hostage children. I remember as a kid how sad and broken their dads looked during their weekend a month with the kids. I got to hear what pieces of shit they were from the women who didn't work or do fucking anything.

All three of them now have great relationships with their fathers, who have by and large lived on credit and have nothing. It took a good six years past 18 for one of em to get on good terms with his dad. He reall drank the ladies cool aid.

The shit I saw in the military was awe inspiring, and evenmore savage than most of the stuff civilian divorces experience.




I want to raise and support my kids. I don't want to have to pay a ransom to do that.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:10:14 PM EST
I give can give ground on a few things when it comes to social issues, this isn't one of them, abortion is murder. The law that allows abortion is fucked up,for example. A women can be driving to the clinic to abort the baby and a drunk driver/ distracted driver can cause an accident that kills the fetus/baby and be charged for manslaughtner, how the fuck is that? Abortion is murder that is a fucking fact.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:10:25 PM EST
So long as abortion is legal, men should have the right to opt out of fatherhood. However, giving men parity in that regard would not tend to resolve the abortion debate, which is about two things: (1) when life begins; and (2) when the right of a life in utero to be born outweighs the right of a woman to opt out of motherhood.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:10:38 PM EST
Doesn't change the fact that it is murder, so I'm going to have to say it would not change my stance on abortion.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:12:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:


You had a say in the matter when you decided to stick it in. It's amazing the kind of mentalities the sexual revolution has engendered. Certainly nothing positive for society.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?


A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?


Well for one, I worked a nursing home for four years and has plenty of old people tell me they wanted to die.

I'm not saying kill them for financial reasons, I'm saying eliminate finance from the equation.

Like it or not the shit is legal in this country, and right now the male is owned by the female. That doesn't make sense.



Also, I would never talk someone I knocked up into an abortion - but the idea of two decades of my life in financial ruin doesn't appeal to me. I want to be a father, and there should be no financial obligation that I have to fulfill to do that when I have no say in the matter.


You had a say in the matter when you decided to stick it in. It's amazing the kind of mentalities the sexual revolution has engendered. Certainly nothing positive for society.



So did she, unless its surprise sex.

What's more, is it worth losing all control over your country?
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:12:38 PM EST
OP wants me to "compromise" on my stance against murdering unborn babies. Not going to happen. The left always wants me to compromise my morals it seems.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:13:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
So long as abortion is legal, men should have the right to opt out of fatherhood. However, giving men parity in that regard would not tend to resolve the abortion debate, which is about two things: (1) when life begins; and (2) when the right of a life in utero to be born outweighs the right of a woman to opt out of motherhood.
View Quote

Fucking thank you. That's what I was trying to get at.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:14:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By autumnsong:
OP wants me to "compromise" on my stance against murdering unborn babies. Not going to happen. The left always wants me to compromise my morals it seems.
View Quote



I'm not asking you to. I asking if you would or not, and why. This shit is for scientific research.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:14:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:

A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Originally Posted By CrazyWhiteGuy:
Men could financially opt out of supporting a child that they did not want.

This came up while discussing politics with a overly libtard bootycall of mine in shitcago. Her very yuppy attempts to show the world how not racist she is has gotten her robbed, her apartment burglarized etc so while there may be hope for her eventually the fact is that we both agree on one thing.

Pro life politics had doomed conservatives.

Now I understand that neither way will please everyone, but there should be compromise.



If men are allowed a "say" in whether a child is kept or flushed...then they hold some form of ownership over the woman. This obviously just won't do. However, if a man doesn't get a "say". Then why is he held financially liable for the kid he doesn't want? Is that not indicative of the female half of the equation owning us as property?


Seems the only logical halfway point is for women to make up their minds in accordance with state and federal laws, and for men to have the legal ability to opt out or electively financially support the woman and child.





Opinions?


A human being is a human being and it is immoral to kill a human being for financial reasons. You would get upset if they pulled the plug or denied care to granny becaused she cost too much or the family had no patience to wait for the inheritance, do you?


Interesting questions. Would you require the family to bankrupt itself or the hospital to provide free care in order to keep granny on a respirator?
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:16:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
You had a say in the matter when you decided to stick it in.
View Quote


And his partner had a say when she put her ankles behind her ears.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:21:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:


And his partner had a say when she put her ankles behind her ears.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
You had a say in the matter when you decided to stick it in.


And his partner had a say when she put her ankles behind her ears.


I'm not disputing that, but he's talking about not wanting to have financial responsibility for a child.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:24:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CuttingEdges:
It has doomed the right, as has all of their moral meddling.

ETA: I don't care if people want to abort their babies anymore, it's a fight that can't be won and there are so many more important issues to address.
View Quote


There is no more important issue than the right to life. Without it, nothing else matters.
Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:25:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mech2007:


It has nothing to do with money.



View Quote

Link Posted: 7/26/2013 5:26:31 PM EST
I am of the opinion, its not the use its the abuse.

This country has all but destroyed the sanctity of family and marriage. Men being able to opt out would be very helpful in some situations...but devastating in others. But then again it may get fucking cunt whores to think twice about their selfish actions before they try fucking a guy over. Don't get me wrong though, there are some shitbag guys out there.


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top