User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:00:33 PM EDT
[#1]
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:08:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:13:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:14:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:16:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. Yep. I'm paying child support and alimony. I'd happily give everything I can ever earn for my boys lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:16:59 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:18:15 PM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:18:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Life isn't fair. The soon that is understood, the sooner more meaningful conversations may be had.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:18:59 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:19:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:19:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Murder. Child Support. Two different things dude.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:22:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Brutally honest... Well put! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:23:25 PM EDT
[#13]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:24:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:26:13 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:27:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Important to who, precisely? Besides you, that is ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:27:14 PM EDT
[#17]
I wouldn't change my stance on abortion.
ETA - really wasn't thinking about what I was typing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:28:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:30:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:30:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. That's where I am. Ass or mouth. I'm just tried of hearing "war on women" and having it actually work
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:31:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Ah, the "Rhythm Method" People who use this method of birth control are frequently referred to as "Parents" Myself included. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:33:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:34:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't change my stance on abortion. ETA - really wasn't thinking about what I was typing. I do believe that if women were equal there would be no financial burden when a man abdicates his parental rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:39:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:39:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:39:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:41:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Pretty well thought out and logical argument. You sure that belongs in GD? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:42:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I like that |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:43:52 PM EDT
[#29]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:54:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote 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. Wat? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 5:56:11 PM EDT
[#31]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:01:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:01:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. Or the man. Or the woman. Or religion. What kind of sick asshole rabidly fights for the "right" to kill her baby? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:03:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:05:53 PM EDT
[#35]
pro choice here.
it has nothing to do with money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:09:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What kind of sick asshole rabidly fights for the "right" to kill her baby? Why do you hate women? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:09:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wat?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
- 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:10:14 PM EDT
[#38]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:10:25 PM EDT
[#39]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:10:38 PM EDT
[#40]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:12:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:12:38 PM EDT
[#42]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:13:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Fucking thank you. That's what I was trying to get at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:14:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.I'm not asking you to. I asking if you would or not, and why. This shit is for scientific research. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:14:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:16:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:21:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And his partner had a say when she put her ankles behind her ears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:24:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. There is no more important issue than the right to life. Without it, nothing else matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:25:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2013 6:26:31 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
