Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's a sad day in hell when even the pro-choicers admit there is something morally wrong with what these women are doing.

The woman can pay for thousands of dollars of IVF but not take care of two children. A consumerist lifestyle taking precedence over moral behavior; artificiality of the pregnancy justifying grotesque behavior.

If the babies:

1. Don't have eternal souls.
2. Will never be able to speak out against their murderers.
3. Lack the ability to even comprehend anything (because they are not developed enough).
4. And no God exists meaning no objective morality cares about the death of a lump of cells that only loosely resembles a mature version of that species.

Then it doesn't matter if you destroy a creature you paid to have created. It's not murder. It's not an affront to an objective truth. It's not even morally wrong.

if you arent ready to be a parent then you should not bring children into the world. more than 80% of pregnancies are unplanned. and teen pregnancies are rising every day as well.

Children should not make Children, so at that point I dont see a problem with abortions

Originally posted by chomperx9
Children should not make Children, so at that point I dont see a problem with abortions

Decent logic.


I also see the "morning after" pill being a better option than abortion.

Originally posted by dadudemon


I also see the "morning after" pill being a better option than abortion. Agreed

It's so easy for some people to be pro-life when they're not the ones who are pregnant.

While I know various fertility practices are quite profuse these days I find the idea that MANY women are purposely getting pregnant and then aborting the fetus, unbelievable.

Of course, sometimes there is no choice (the health of the fetuses or health of the mother is at high risk) when there are too many fetuses. Which is one, of many reasons, why I think the last thing we need are more options for human reproduction.

"Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love. Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent."

Hahahaahahaahhhahhaaahahahahahahaaaahhaaa, worst cop-out ever. What Jenny wanted (since she's already a parent and knows) is to get the little sleep she'll be allowed over the next 1-2 years and not have two babies crying in surround sound.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Then it doesn't matter if you destroy a creature you paid to have created. It's not murder. It's not an affront to an objective truth. It's not even morally wrong.

How come I am not allowed to beat my dog to death with a claw hammer in the middle of my kitchen floor if I so choose??

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the babies:

1. Don't have eternal souls.
2. Will never be able to speak out against their murderers.
3. Lack the ability to even comprehend anything (because they are not developed enough).
4. And no God exists meaning no objective morality cares about the death of a lump of cells that only loosely resembles a mature version of that species.

Then it doesn't matter if you destroy a creature you paid to have created. It's not murder. It's not an affront to an objective truth. It's not even morally wrong.

I have no idea how people don't think it is not murder when it is. All babies are living reather people believe that or not. Abortion is killing a baby just because a parent made the mistake.
Now why should the baby pay for her or his parent's mistake? If people don't want kids don't sleep with anyone or becareful. I also feel that it is pretty selfish why go through all that trouble? It is not worth it.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I have no idea how people don't think it is not murder when it is. All babies are living reather people believe that or not. Abortion is killing a baby just because a parent made the mistake.
Now why should the baby pay for her or his parent's mistake? If people don't want kids don't sleep with anyone or becareful. I also feel that it is pretty selfish why go through all that trouble? It is not worth it.

Tell me about it!

If I can legally use a coat hanger to kill junior how come I can't bludgeon my Shih-Tzu???

Originally posted by theICONiac
How come I am not allowed to beat my dog to death with a claw hammer in the middle of my kitchen floor if I so choose??



Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I have no idea how people don't think it is not murder when it is. All babies are living reather people believe that or not. Abortion is killing a baby just because a parent made the mistake.
Now why should the baby pay for her or his parent's mistake? If people don't want kids don't sleep with anyone or becareful. I also feel that it is pretty selfish why go through all that trouble? It is not worth it.


Don't shoot the messenger.

I'm a Mormon so it's obvious I don't agree with their sentiments.


Out of my list, I don't believe 1, 2, or 3.

I am not I am just saying how I feel.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I have no idea how people don't think it is not murder when it is.

Probably because there's a definition for murder.

I'm never getting an abortion













131

I'm pro-choice; I believe in a woman's right to choose, but that's straight f*cked. What a complete and utter b*tch.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm pro-choice; I believe in a woman's right to choose, but that's straight f*cked. What a complete and utter b*tch. Why?

How is this morally different from a normal abortion in your mind?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?

How is this morally different from a normal abortion in your mind?

I'm not talking about morality as such. It's her reasons for doing it that irk me.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not talking about morality as such. It's her reasons for doing it that irk me.

Well, if we take her at face value "not financially secure enough" seems to be one of the main contenders for reasons for abortion generally.

I suppose if there's no medical issue, you can't really make a good argument for why she's not just carries them to term and puts one up for abortion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if we take her at face value "not financially secure enough" seems to be one of the main contenders for reasons for abortion generally.

I suppose if there's no medical issue, you can't really make a good argument for why she's not just carries them to term and puts one up for abortion.

People have their reasons for doing it; I don't think it should be done willy nilly, but in general their business is their business. When their reasons are put out there, if I don't like them, I'll say so.

At the end of the day it's still her choice, I just think her reasoning is flawed. And stupid.

putting em up for abortion eh?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm a Mormon

ermm

Originally posted by -Pr-
People have their reasons for doing it; I don't think it should be done willy nilly, but in general their business is their business. When their reasons are put out there, if I don't like them, I'll say so.

At the end of the day it's still her choice, I just think her reasoning is flawed. And stupid.

putting em up for abortion eh?

Yeah, post natal abortion, for extra Karma points.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, post natal abortion, for extra Karma points.

Nice.

Originally posted by Barker
ermm

Do you mind not swinging from my nuts and instead contributing to the thread?

You could have spent this time trying to beat my signature.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because there's a definition for murder.

And it is Abortion

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
And it is Abortion

Proof would be nice.

I will find some. But I have no idea why it is always proof proof can't everyone just believe something by looking at the bigger picture or in there hearts anymore?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I will find some. But I have no idea why it is always proof proof can't everyone just believe something by looking at the bigger picture or in there hearts anymore?

In my heart I don't believe abortion and murder are the same thing. shrug

Originally posted by Impediment
It's so easy for some people to be pro-life when they're not the ones who are pregnant.

That's irrelevant. Whether someone has ever been pregnant or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether abortion is wrong or not.

Originally posted by -Pr-
In my heart I don't believe abortion and murder are the same thing. shrug

Well, I should hope not. If you did and were still okay with it I would be worried.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, I should hope not. If you did and were still okay with it I would be worried.

badawe

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
And it is Abortion

The definition of murder is abortion? As in killing a person isn't murder but aborting a fetus is?

That's a pretty sick sort of morality.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi

Now why should the baby pay for her or his parent's mistake? You mean like, inherited sin?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if we take her at face value "not financially secure enough" seems to be one of the main contenders for reasons for abortion generally.

I suppose if there's no medical issue, you can't really make a good argument for why she's not just carries them to term and puts one up for abortion. Your money system kills babies. If Ron Paul was president, he'd kill more babies than he delivered.

I guess if people really want abortion to go away, they should give these people a shit loads of money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Your money system kills babies. If Ron Paul was president, he'd kill more babies than he delivered.

I guess if people really want abortion to go away, they should give these people a shit loads of money.

No, Ron Paul has been clear on Abortion: leave it up to the states and the states' citizens to decide on abortion because the Fed. Gov. has no business regulating that deeply into people's lives.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Your money system kills babies. If Ron Paul was president, he'd kill more babies than he delivered.

I guess if people really want abortion to go away, they should give these people a shit loads of money.

Well, the alternative probably would kill even more, Soviet style.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, Ron Paul has been clear on Abortion: leave it up to the states and the states' citizens to decide on abortion because the Fed. Gov. has no business regulating that deeply into people's lives. I'm talking about his economic policy.

Moron.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the alternative probably would kill even more, Soviet style. These are not the only two options.

Moron.

blame it on poor women

Originally posted by lord xyz
These are not the only two options.

Moron.

Bring on your option then. Don't just try to shoot down the system that actually works in practice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bring on your option then. Don't just try to shoot down the system that actually works in practice. Considering the whole world is in debt and a lot of people are dying and increasingly getting poorer whilst the rich are getting richer, I don't know how you can claim this system works.

You already admitted that being poor is the main cause of abortion...so again, I don't know how you can claim it works.

Yeah, my system is using the scientific method to satisfy human needs, not giving them a dollar when they do what you tell them, so they can buy what you advertise for them.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm talking about his economic policy.

Moron.

These are not the only two options.

Moron.


1. Reported.
2. You clearly didn't understand how my statement is still quite valid to what you just said. Go back and read it again.


I actually typed up a long reply as to why you didn't understand at all, economically, how my reply was quite fitting. I deleted because you're just trolling and definitely do not deserve any type of legitimate intellectual discussion.

1. You're reporting me calling you a moron. **** me.

2. I meant to say mormon. ermmhappy

3. If he lets it up for the state to decide, then it's obvious Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California etc. would legalise it, and of course, a lot of poor people there would have abortions because they have no money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Considering the whole world is in debt and a lot of people are dying and increasingly getting poorer whilst the rich are getting richer, I don't know how you can claim this system works.


It does though, it has for ages, and, at least in the US, on average people live so, so much better than 150 years ago. You like to only claim that on scientific progress, but the fact is that so much of the scientific progress we had in the last 200 years was completely fueled by people's desire to make money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You already admitted that being poor is the main cause of abortion...so again, I don't know how you can claim it works.

I am not saying it's an utopia, but it obviously works, so what if there's abortions, where does it say that a system that works is defined by there not being abortions. Would there be no abortions in your system? Would they be illegal or would you magically get everyone to want to have babies?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, my system is using the scientific method to satisfy human needs, not giving them a dollar when they do what you tell them, so they can buy what you advertise for them.

Then state it, outline it, show how you can solve the problems we can find with it, show how it can work right now. Lets level the playing field, it's easy to poke holes into systems (even ones that, on the whole, work, like the one we have for example), so lets give us a chance to destroy your system.

From the overconfidence in Robotics as they are right now, to the naivety towards the wants and urges of humans, it is obvious that the little glimpses of the system you supported have huge, gaping flaws that make it completely removed from reality, so either put up or shut up.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Considering the whole world is in debt and a lot of people are dying and increasingly getting poorer whilst the rich are getting richer, I don't know how you can claim this system works.

You already admitted that being poor is the main cause of abortion...so again, I don't know how you can claim it works.

Yeah, my system is using the scientific method to satisfy human needs, not giving them a dollar when they do what you tell them, so they can buy what you advertise for them.

Moron babble.

Simplistic moron babble.

Epic idealist moron babble.

This thread is just stupid.

So a woman used IVF to get pregnant and it caused two fetuses. Twins are considered a high-risk pregnancy. Becoming pregnant at all past the age of 40 is considered very high-risk. A woman that age giving birth to twins could very well kill all three of them.

She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?

This thread is disgusting and the title is very misleading.

Oh, and no, being poor isn't the main cause of abortion, lord xyz. Not wanting to have a child is the main cause of it.

Originally posted by Peach

She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?


I totally agree with this.

Originally posted by Peach
She wanted to get pregnant, and wound up pregnant with more than wanted. Who cares? Maybe they don't have the financial means to support two children. Maybe she doesn't feel that she'd be able to keep up with two infants. Maybe she simply just wants one kid. Who the hell cares? Why is it anyone else's business but her own?

This thread is disgusting and the title is very misleading.


Article shows the possibility of abortions being used as a form of birth control. Most women who have an abortion do so because they became pregnant due to BC failure, laziness, idiocy, rape etc.; ie they did not wish to become pregnant. This woman did.

IMO, this thread is disgusting; using abortion as a form of birth control is; especially after purposely seeking a pregnancy. Though I doubt this is a common practice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does though, it has for ages, and, at least in the US, on average people live so, so much better than 150 years ago.

You like to only claim that on scientific progress, but the fact is that so much of the scientific progress we had in the last 200 years was completely fueled by people's desire to make money. Completely fuelled? Sure, you can believe that, if you want, but you're wrong.

Edwin Armstrong, the man who patented FM had a huge impact on people's lives, yet he couldn't compete with AM, due to a lack of money and ended up killing himself. Only after his death did everyone use FM. Nikola Tesler invented wireless technology, but of course couldn't compete with Edison and of course Edison liked making money. In fact, here's a video Edison made to show how dangerous AC was by electrocuting an elephant:

RkBU3aYsf0Q

I could go on and on about how money creates greed, rather than incentive, but this is an abortion thread, so I'm just gonna reply to this post as short as possible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not saying it's an utopia, but it obviously works, so what if there's abortions, where does it say that a system that works is defined by there not being abortions. Would there be no abortions in your system? Would they be illegal or would you magically get everyone to want to have babies? You and your sense of humour.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Then state it, outline it, show how you can solve the problems we can find with it, show how it can work right now. Lets level the playing field, it's easy to poke holes into systems (even ones that, on the whole, work, like the one we have for example), so lets give us a chance to destroy your system. 1/3 of the world is dying of hunger, and you claim that to be a working system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
From the overconfidence in Robotics as they are right now, to the naivety towards the wants and urges of humans, it is obvious that the little glimpses of the system you supported have huge, gaping flaws that make it completely removed from reality, so either put up or shut up. So you're saying we don't have the technology to help all humans on the planet, and human beings don't like to help other human beings.......

Yeah, you got that wrong. Armstrong was ****ed, but FM radio did not get pushed aside, the greedy bastards who ****ed him went on to patent their own FM devices along with securing their hold on AM. FM (TV and Radio) was used heavily while Armstrong was alive, he just didn't get the money for it as his lawsuits on patent rights kept failing in court.

All in all, it was about money/greed and the furthering of technology.

Your elephant ramble didn't make sense considering your premise. Topsy was also killed after the 'War of Currents' was over.

Edit. I don't wanna derail this thread ne more.

Considering everything you're saying is wrong, it's a good idea.

Abortions after intentional pregnancy: Discuss.

Originally posted by Robtard
Abortions after intentional pregnancy: Discuss.

To me, definitely moral if circumstances changes or unexpected issues arise.

Should be legal always.

And I feel like it is nobody's business.


That sums up my feelings.

Meh. This thread seems redundant. The title conjures images of women conceiving children for the sole purpose of aborting them. It's a strange and unlikely scenario, but it piqued my interest.

After reading through the article, I doubt we'll see more than standard pro-life/pro-choice arguments. Of course, that is for good reason. The article raises issues that are already covered or available for discussion in our main abortion thread.

As for my stance, Peach and Bardock42 hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To me, definitely moral if circumstances changes or unexpected issues arise.

Should be legal always.

And I feel like it is nobody's business.


That sums up my feelings.

Her reasoning was basically: "I don't want to spend the time raising two". Which imo, is a weak excuse to perform an abortion, especially after trying hard to get pregnant.

Doubt any laws specific to cases like this would pass.

Agreed, but she made it other people's business when she did the interview. Should have just kept her mouth shut and went about killing one of her twins.

Originally posted by Robtard
Her reasoning was basically: "I don't want to spend the time raising two". Which imo, is a weak excuse to perform an abortion, especially after trying hard to get pregnant.

Doubt any laws specific to cases like this would pass.

Agreed, but she made it other people's business when she did the interview. Should have just kept her mouth shut and went about killing one of her twins.

Her reasoning, as stated, was that she did not have the financial means to raise two.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Her reasoning, as stated, was that she did not have the financial means to raise two.

I must have skipped that part, I read the part where she said she didn't want to short-change her other kids or the would-be twins out of "love." Cos it's limited apparently.

But again, she can pay for these costly procedures, but can't pay for diapers? Odd, but okay.

Ostensibly, it does appear odd;


however, 6 years of those procedures might run the savings a little dry to say the least. I'm not horribly surprised that financial troubles motivate her abortion. She can't spend money she already spent.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It's a sad day in hell when even the pro-choicers admit there is something morally wrong with what these women are doing.

The woman can pay for thousands of dollars of IVF but not take care of two children. A consumerist lifestyle taking precedence over moral behavior; artificiality of the pregnancy justifying grotesque behavior. Almost as bad as when they try to trap men by lying about the kid or using the kid to extort them.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Almost as bad as when they try to trap men by lying about the kid or using the kid to extort them.

lol


You don't know how many times I've seen that same story unfold.

It kind of pisses me off when a lady tells me she's stopped taking BC because she wants to get pregnant...and doesn't tell her man. I've seen this only from Mexican females, though. (Yes, Mexicans. Not Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc. Mexicans.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol


You don't know how many times I've seen that same story unfold.

It kind of pisses me off when a lady tells me she's stopped taking BC because she wants to get pregnant...and doesn't tell her man. I've seen this only from Mexican females, though. (Yes, Mexicans. Not Puerto Ricans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc. Mexicans.) It's bad when girls who are 16 or 17 do this. I tell men to watch about this because women are sneaky, but some are just too caught up by the genitals to pay attention. It's all a matter of scale. Women will lie about birth control, *will* poke holes in condoms, etc. I always tell guys to use them 100% of the time. I couldn't let a woman take away what I have worked so hard for. No freakin' way. I think guys may be better off in many cases getting fixed and storing the sperm for later, so no ***** decides your future for you. Especially considering how the system screws over men.

There are the Hispanics or ghetto chicks who brag about getting $200 a month, and then you have the hot gold-diggers who get huge $50 million dollars from men.

It's all legalized prostitution, and don't get me started on alimony. This whole topic gets on my nerves. Women like to act like they don't want to abort because it is "against their morals" when they're out fornicating nonetheless. Then they have no problem aborting when it benefits them, but they won't if they can get a man to pay. I think men should have the same rights as women and be able to opt out. (The abortion should be the woman's choice, but no man should be forced into parenthood). The number of these pregnancies would go down if men weren't forced into it, or if women didn't get money in other ways.

It also proves what I say, we all do what we want for our own benefit, and having kids is a selfish act. People do it to keep men around, to fulfill themselves to fill a void, etc. That doesn't mean they're "evil" for it, because we all act in our own self interest. But it is a selfish act. Especially since we aren't lacking in population.

End rant.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's bad when girls who are 16 or 17 do this. I tell men to watch about this because women are sneaky, but some are just too caught up by the genitals to pay attention. It's all a matter of scale.

Indeed. While the women my be devious, the men are equally at fault: they need to mature up and wrap it.

"BC used with a condo. are are best combo."

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
There are the Hispanics or ghetto chicks who brag about getting $200 a month, and then you have the hot gold-diggers who get huge $50 million dollars from men.

Makes me sad.


What makes me more sad are dead beat fathers.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's all legalized prostitution, and don't get me started on alimony. This whole topic gets on my nerves. Women like to act like they don't want to abort because it is "against their morals" when they're out fornicating nonetheless. Then they have no problem aborting when it benefits them, but they won't if they can get a man to pay. I think men should have the same rights as women and be able to opt out. (The abortion should be the woman's choice, but no man should be forced into parenthood). The number of these pregnancies would go down if men weren't forced into it, or if women didn't get money in other ways.

I think that having a child should be an "approved" process. Meaning, you can't have a child unless you are deemed able to support it both mentally and financially. Yes, more fascism from dadudemon...

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It also proves what I say, we all do what we want for our own benefit, and having kids is a selfish act. People do it to keep men around, to fulfill themselves to fill a void, etc. That doesn't mean they're "evil" for it, because we all act in our own self interest. But it is a selfish act. Especially since we aren't lacking in population.

End rant.

Some girls have babies because they want to be moms and don't expect anything from a man. I like those types: Intelligent, independent woman.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. While the women my be devious, the men are equally at fault: they need to mature up and wrap it.

"BC used with a condo. are are best combo." Any man who has sex without a condom is a fool, especially in this day in age. Guys like that have no ambition and don't care what happen to them and just perpetuate the poverty cycle. Not using a condom because "it doesn't feel as good is stupid" just like not wearing one because "she told you she was on birth control".

However, women still have the choice on whether or not a kid can be born, and as you and I know, they are quite devious about this.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Makes me sad.


What makes me more sad are dead beat fathers.

Women should stop choosing men they know are deadbeats. They choose to spread their legs for these men. What happened to women "Having the power of sex over a lot of (wimpy) men?" Who keeps choosing these guys. Women sleeping with "bad boys", guys in jail, guys with no job full well knew the guy was sorry. I know numerous girls like this. We all do. They date the felon, the ex con, etc. Then get knocked up by him to keep him around and then complain he is irresponsible. All while ignoring responsible guys who might not be as good looking or "exciting", but would make good fathers. They choose those guys later when they are older and their shelf life is up.

Complaining he's irresponsible? He was irresponsible before you met him you moron. Then citizens like us are forced to pay. Women who do this have a record of doing it multiple times, it's definitely not an accident. Stop trying to "change" the guy you're with and put a cork in it.

It's people go from being fully functional normal citizens to being deadbeats overnight. People should take responsibility for their actions. No different than me parking a Ferrari in a bad neighborhood at 2am with the door open and the key in the ignition. Should I be surprised it's gone? We have to exercise better decisions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that having a child should be an "approved" process. Meaning, you can't have a child unless you are deemed able to support it both mentally and financially. Yes, more fascism from dadudemon...
Possibly, it wouldn't hurt. They give tax credits to people who are married and have kids, why I don't know. It's something they're going to do anyways, and they also cost society more. What would be better is if they made it with no taxes or something like a tax benefit for people who have two kids or less. Meh.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Some girls have babies because they want to be moms and don't expect anything from a man. I like those types: Intelligent, independent woman. Right, but that's still self fulfillment, which is fine.

But having a kid and not wanting a man around still isn't good for the kid either. Still selfish. Even worse, now the kid has no father around and we see where that goes, especially for boys.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Any man who has sex without a condom is a fool, especially in this day in age. Guys like that have no ambition and don't care what happen to them and just perpetuate the poverty cycle. Not using a condom because "it doesn't feel as good is stupid" just like not wearing one because "she told you she was on birth control".

However, women still have the choice on whether or not a kid can be born, and as you and I know, they are quite devious about this.





Women should stop choosing men they know are deadbeats. They choose to spread their legs for these men. What happened to women "Having the power of sex over a lot of (wimpy) men?" Who keeps choosing these guys. Women sleeping with "bad boys", guys in jail, guys with no job full well knew the guy was sorry. I know numerous girls like this. We all do. They date the felon, the ex con, etc. Then get knocked up by him to keep him around and then complain he is irresponsible. All while ignoring responsible guys who might not be as good looking or "exciting", but would make good fathers. They choose those guys later when they are older and their shelf life is up.

Complaining he's irresponsible? He was irresponsible before you met him you moron. Then citizens like us are forced to pay. Women who do this have a record of doing it multiple times, it's definitely not an accident. Stop trying to "change" the guy you're with and put a cork in it.

It's people go from being fully functional normal citizens to being deadbeats overnight. People should take responsibility for their actions. No different than me parking a Ferrari in a bad neighborhood at 2am with the door open and the key in the ignition. Should I be surprised it's gone? We have to exercise better decisions.


Possibly, it wouldn't hurt. They give tax credits to people who are married and have kids, why I don't know. It's something they're going to do anyways, and they also cost society more. What would be better is if they made it with no taxes or something like a tax benefit for people who have two kids or less. Meh.


Right, but that's still self fulfillment, which is fine.

But having a kid and not wanting a man around still isn't good for the kid either. Still selfish. Even worse, now the kid has no father around and we see where that goes, especially for boys.

Man, you feel more strongly about this than I do.

Some men are players...and they swoon women promise them the world. They can talk the big talk. When babies come into the picture...they leave.


Some women know that they will be left alone and resign to support their children on their own. That's what I mean on that last part. Not the ones that try to get knocked up just to have a kid because it's like an iPhone for them: "Oh, having a baby sounds fun. They are cute! I want one!" Not that type.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, you feel more strongly about this than I do.

Some men are players...and they swoon women promise them the world. They can talk the big talk. When babies come into the picture...they leave.


Some women know that they will be left alone and resign to support their children on their own. That's what I mean on that last part. Not the ones that try to get knocked up just to have a kid because it's like an iPhone for them: "Oh, having a baby sounds fun. They are cute! I want one!" Not that type. Nah it's cool. I just like to elaborate.

Well men who are players or badboys attract women because women think they can "change" these men or that their vaginas are "special" women will date men knowing he has a history of sleeping around. Guys like that are very open about their conquests. Women think he'll be different from them and then they find out wrong. Nothing wrong with having sex with a player, just don't get knocked up by them.

Most guys don't look forward to having kids until older. Most want to have fun, work on their careers, etc. Most have kids because the chick wants it, or because she had it anyways. They don't generally want kids until older. The ones that have them young are the ones who just were too dumb to use protection or got tricked into it.

Take care bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that having a child should be an "approved" process. Meaning, you can't have a child unless you are deemed able to support it both mentally and financially. Yes, more fascism from dadudemon...


What would happen to a mother or family that has a child without getting approved, though? Obviously you don't want to pull a China.

Originally posted by Robtard
Article shows the possibility of abortions being used as a form of birth control. Most women who have an abortion do so because they became pregnant due to BC failure, laziness, idiocy, rape etc.; ie they did not wish to become pregnant. This woman did.

IMO, this thread is disgusting; using abortion as a form of birth control is; especially after purposely seeking a pregnancy. Though I doubt this is a common practice.

I highly doubt this sort of thing is common, either. They wouldn't interview someone about it if it wasn't an incredibly rare occurrence. Not to mention the fact that the US Government (thank you, Republican Congress) and various states are trying to put even more limits on abortions to make them hard or nearly impossible to get.

Also...using abortion as birth control? That's kind of what it is. It prevents a birth from happening. It is birth control.

The point was using it after purposely seeking to get pregnant, most women who use birth control(the pill, condoms and/or other hormone regulation) are not seeking to become pregnant to begin with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that having a child should be an "approved" process. Meaning, you can't have a child unless you are deemed able to support it both mentally and financially. Yes, more common sense from dadudemon...
Fixed.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, this thread is disgusting; using abortion as a form of birth control is; especially after purposely seeking a pregnancy. I'm all for pro-choice, but yeah, IMO this would be a horrid abuse of one's right to have an abortion.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What would happen to a mother or family that has a child without getting approved, though? Obviously you don't want to pull a China. Center a reality show around them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think that having a child should be an "approved" process. Meaning, you can't have a child unless you are deemed able to support it both mentally and financially. Yes, more fascism from dadudemon...

you have no fear of the state do you?

I don't like people having kids recklessly and irresponsibly. However I really don't want the government sticking their hands into my personal affairs either. For anything.

Even if it means protecting an unborn baby from being murdered?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Even if it means protecting an unborn baby from being murdered? That's better than having a kid and not being able to provide for it or raising it in a dysfunctional home with poverty and no father? Probably worse.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What would happen to a mother or family that has a child without getting approved, though? Obviously you don't want to pull a China.

In my society, they physically are not able to have children, even if they want to.


Devices would prevent it.


Then you can ask: what about illegal immigrants? They would be immediately known because in my fascist society, everyone has an implant and it passively tells us who everyone is. No implant, instantly noticed.


Yes, Minority Report type scenario.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my society, they physically are not able to have children, even if they want to.


Devices would prevent it.


Then you can ask: what about illegal immigrants? They would be immediately known because in my fascist society, everyone has an implant and it passively tells us who everyone is. No implant, instantly noticed.


Yes, Minority Report type scenario.

Sounds kinktastic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my society, they physically are not able to have children, even if they want to.


Devices would prevent it.


Then you can ask: what about illegal immigrants? They would be immediately known because in my fascist society, everyone has an implant and it passively tells us who everyone is. No implant, instantly noticed.


Yes, Minority Report type scenario.

eek

If I fight on your side when you take over the world, can I not have an implant?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
That's better than having a kid and not being able to provide for it or raising it in a dysfunctional home with poverty and no father? Probably worse.

Give the kid to someone who wants children. Not all foster or Adopted parents are bad.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Give the kid to someone who wants children. Not all foster or Adopted parents are bad. But why keep cranking out kids into this world you can't afford? It costs society money and adds to the problem. This is why having kids is the most selfish thing a person can do (we're all motivated by our own self interest). The people adopting are somewhat more selfless as they are helping. But cranking out more and more kids in our dense population doesn't help anybody. Most people don't put their kids up anyways and let them live in poverty and dysfunction.

How is going from home to home good for a kid anyways? I do agree that there are good ones out there, but there are a *lot* of bad ones, whether it's the kid of the foster parent. My friend's parents did it for a while, and a lot of those kids have troubled backgrounds.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But why keep cranking out kids into this world you can't afford? It costs society money and adds to the problem. This is why having kids is the most selfish thing a person can do (we're all motivated by our own self interest). The people adopting are somewhat more selfless as they are helping. But cranking out more and more kids in our dense population doesn't help anybody. Most people don't put their kids up anyways and let them live in poverty and dysfunction.

How is going from home to home good for a kid anyways? I do agree that there are good ones out there, but there are a *lot* of bad ones, whether it's the kid of the foster parent. My friend's parents did it for a while, and a lot of those kids have troubled backgrounds.

That may be true, but if you ask anyone what they would rather have happen to them, they have the possibility of a harder life, or they get killed, which option do you think most people are going to choose? And even if some might want to die, that is a choice we have no right to force on them.

That's why the question of the fetuses "personhood" is what's important in a debate on abortion. Should the fetus be treated as a child or not? If so, then we cannot justify killing it at all. If not, then we can do just about anything we want to it. Everything else is completely irrelevant.

Just saying...

I disagree, I find beyond the personhood thing, which I obviously don't think a fetus is either, is also the issue of the mother's rights to her own body, which, in my view, even a full person has no right to.

the problem with the "personhood" thing is that it is just an entire mess of special pleading. Personhood means a lot more than simply "the right to life".

Tac specifies "like a child", but even that is problematic. Children have rights that a fetus does not (what defines a child anyways, anyone under 18? ), and even then, the fact that "child" and "adult" can be differentiated means that it is just as possible to differentiate between "child" and "fetus"

Originally posted by TacDavey
That may be true, but if you ask anyone what they would rather have happen to them, they have the possibility of a harder life, or they get killed, which option do you think most people are going to choose? And even if some might want to die, that is a choice we have no right to force on them.

That's why the question of the fetuses "personhood" is what's important in a debate on abortion. Should the fetus be treated as a child or not? If so, then we cannot justify killing it at all. If not, then we can do just about anything we want to it. Everything else is completely irrelevant.

Just saying... But a fetus can't "choose" not only that, it isn't a possibility of a harder life, it *is* a harder life.

More crime, worse healthcare, worse education, more likely to be jailed, shot, killed, become a teenage parent or drug addict, etc. It's a big cycle. Not to mention higher rates of depression and suicide. Not to mention the burden on society.

Obviously this is a split issue, but women who have a "moral issue" with aborting shouldn't be fornicating anyways, if they are that moral they should wait until they're married and stop having sex with deadbeats or losers. Then they won't have to make this hard decision. Not to mention many women do this to trap men and keep them around.

If men could opt out of parenthood like women, and they didn't give out welfare, alimony, etc. to women who do this, it would be a lot less of this going on. Women have an amazing ability to put a cork in it if they are going to be the ones left paying for it.Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I find beyond the personhood thing, which I obviously don't think a fetus is either, is also the issue of the mother's rights to her own body, which, in my view, even a full person has no right to. Well my problem is them getting the benefit of opting out of parenthood that men don't. Equal rights right?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master

If men could opt out of parenthood like women, and they didn't give out welfare, alimony, etc. to women who do this, it would be a lot less of this going on. Women have an amazing ability to put a cork in it if they are going to be the ones left paying for it. Well my problem is them getting the benefit of opting out of parenthood that men don't. Equal rights right?

Well, that's a completely different issue, but, yeah, I, too, have a problem with that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I find beyond the personhood thing, which I obviously don't think a fetus is either, is also the issue of the mother's rights to her own body, which, in my view, even a full person has no right to. So, you don't think that a woman who has sex willingly, and conceives (assuming the fetus IS "full person", we don't have the right to tell her not to kill the little person in her because it is "her body" even though she made the mistake of getting pregnant? That sounds extremely selfish to me.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But a fetus can't "choose" not only that, it isn't a possibility of a harder life, it *is* a harder life.

More crime, worse healthcare, worse education, more likely to be jailed, shot, killed, become a teenage parent or drug addict, etc. It's a big cycle. Not to mention higher rates of depression and suicide. Not to mention the burden on society.
So, no one that had a hard life was happy? All those things you pointed out don't matter, by this logic, we should kill every child who might get shot in his future, because that would suck! The point is, people deserve a choice, they have a God given right to that choice. They don't have to be gang members, they don't have to be a drain on society, they don't have to do any of those things you pointed out, and if they do, that sux, but who are we to say they should die because they have a chance of, one day, becoming a gang member, or cost the rest of the country/state a little more money? (btw, the answer to that is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY! but that is a different issue).

I do agree with you about not getting pregnant if you don't want a baby, but not ONLY if they have a problem with abortion, just in general.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's a completely different issue, but, yeah, I, too, have a problem with that.

You have an issue with . . . biology?

Originally posted by menokokoro
So, you don't think that a woman who has sex willingly, and conceives (assuming the fetus IS "full person", we don't have the right to tell her not to kill the little person in her because it is "her body" even though she made the mistake of getting pregnant? That sounds extremely selfish to me.

So, no one that had a hard life was happy? All those things you pointed out don't matter, by this logic, we should kill every child who might get shot in his future, because that would suck! The point is, people deserve a choice, they have a God given right to that choice. They don't have to be gang members, they don't have to be a drain on society, they don't have to do any of those things you pointed out, and if they do, that sux, but who are we to say they should die because they have a chance of, one day, becoming a gang member, or cost the rest of the country/state a little more money? (btw, the answer to that is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY! but that is a different issue).

I do agree with you about not getting pregnant if you don't want a baby, but not ONLY if they have a problem with abortion, just in general. I grew up in a rougher background and turned out extremely well, doesn't mean I'd recommend it to anybody.

It's ignorant and selfish to bring someone into this world you can't take care of. It's abusive. A fetus can't choose anything, we're talking about fetuses not children.

They don't have to be a drain or be worse off, but they generally are. Kids in backgrounds like this are more prone to repeat it because they lived it, trust me I know.

Poverty and a lack of a father is dysfunctional and damaging to a child. It's just a lifetime of abuse vs ending something you aren't ready for. Why would you have a kid you aren't ready to take care of in the best of ways?

I'm not saying go around killing people left and right btw, I'm just saying we should keep it in a minimum in the first place.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I grew up in a rougher background and turned out extremely well, doesn't mean I'd recommend it to anybody.

It's ignorant and selfish to bring someone into this world you can't take care of. It's abusive. A fetus can't choose anything, we're talking about fetuses not children. Your missing the point, you aren't giving them a choice as a fetus, you are giving them an opportunity to live, so they can make those choices later.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
They don't have to be a drain or be worse off, but they generally are. Kids in backgrounds like this are more prone to repeat it because they lived it, trust me I know. Again...How does this mean they should die? Even if they were certain to be a drain, that isn't cause to be killed, otherwise we wouldn't have welfare, we would just have a firing squad.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Poverty and a lack of a father is dysfunctional and damaging to a child. It's just a lifetime of abuse vs ending something you aren't ready for. Why would you have a kid you aren't ready to take care of in the best of ways?

I'm not saying go around killing people left and right btw, I'm just saying we should keep it in a minimum in the first place. yeah, I agree completely that if someone isn't ready to have a child they shouldn't, they shouldn't even have sex imo. But I don't think abortion is the answer because the child will have a hard time, or will have a higher chance of being a criminal. And I'm not even talking about the "chance" of it, I'm talking about the fact that even those things, if they were to happen to every child who was born into a dysfunctional home, are not good enough reason to stop something from living.

As for the argument that "they aren't living" that is complete and utter BS! Who are we to decide if they are living or not? the FACT is that they will be born as a "living" thing, what difference does it make that they might not be alive, in the traditional sense, as a fetus?

Originally posted by menokokoro
Your missing the point, you aren't giving them a choice as a fetus, you are giving them an opportunity to live, so they can make those choices later.

Again...How does this mean they should die? Even if they were certain to be a drain, that isn't cause to be killed, otherwise we wouldn't have welfare, we would just have a firing squad.

yeah, I agree completely that if someone isn't ready to have a child they shouldn't, they shouldn't even have sex imo. But I don't think abortion is the answer because the child will have a hard time, or will have a higher chance of being a criminal. And I'm not even talking about the "chance" of it, I'm talking about the fact that even those things, if they were to happen to every child who was born into a dysfunctional home, are not good enough reason to stop something from living.

As for the argument that "they aren't living" that is complete and utter BS! Who are we to decide if they are living or not? the FACT is that they will be born as a "living" thing, what difference does it make that they might not be alive, in the traditional sense, as a fetus? But you're also eliminating the very high chance that they will repeat the cycle.

Not only that, but even if the kid turns out good, raising them in an environment like that isn't good. I know because I turned out good and I was from there, so what.

I didn't say they "should" die or whatnot. My point was that bringing them up in a life of abuse or lack isn't better than the other option. One is a lot quicker than the other. The point is they can't decide. They don't have the mental development of kids or adults, that isn't the point. We wouldn't need a firing squad as we'd have less idiots out there selfishly having kids they can't afford. Is there an opportunity where the parent should ever abort? Being harmful to the parent, the child itself, *and* society isn't enough of a reason.

I feel it is developing. Just not able to make the same cognitive thoughts that children and adults will. People make their code based on what's convenient to them anyways.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I didn't say they "should" die or whatnot. My point was that bringing them up in a life of abuse or lack isn't better than the other option. One is a lot quicker than the other. The point is they can't decide. They don't have the mental development of kids or adults, that isn't the point. We wouldn't need a firing squad as we'd have less idiots out there selfishly having kids they can't afford. Is there an opportunity where the parent should ever abort? Being harmful to the parent, the child itself, *and* society isn't enough of a reason. Now we are arguing opinions. You think that being aborted is better than living in that environment (correct me if I'm reading it wrong), while I believe that life, even a horrible one, is better than nothing.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Now we are arguing opinions. You think that being aborted is better than living in that environment (correct me if I'm reading it wrong), while I believe that life, even a horrible one, is better than nothing. You're not understanding my point, some other member made the case that it's such a horrible thing to abort. But having kids irresponsibly is horrible. To the person, to the kid, and to society.

It isn't. Why bring a person into the troubles life has to offer that didn't ask to be there, it's selfish. Why not have kids and raise them in the best environment possible with both parents and money for things like health insurance and heat for the winter?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have an issue with . . . biology?

Yeah, like many Germans, I thrive to become the master of biology.


No, I have an issue with the fact that men do not have a say in whether they want to have to contribute to a child's life as a father. I think it's an unrelated issue, but potentially I don't see why a man has to financially support a child he did not want, because the woman wanted to have it. Of course he shouldn't have the right to make her abort it, but I could imagine it to be okay for him to opt out of parenthood.

Originally posted by menokokoro
So, you don't think that a woman who has sex willingly, and conceives (assuming the fetus IS "full person", we don't have the right to tell her not to kill the little person in her because it is "her body" even though she made the mistake of getting pregnant? That sounds extremely selfish to me.

I think she should have the right to separate that person from her body, if that leads to that person's death that is unfortunate, but not her problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think she should have the right to separate that person from her body, if that leads to that person's death that is unfortunate, but not her problem. And that doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, like many Germans, I thrive to become the master of biology.


No, I have an issue with the fact that men do not have a say in whether they want to have to contribute to a child's life as a father. I think it's an unrelated issue, but potentially I don't see why a man has to financially support a child he did not want, because the woman wanted to have it. Of course he shouldn't have the right to make her abort it, but I could imagine it to be okay for him to opt out of parenthood.

So a man must pay child support for a child the woman decides to keep... but if she decides to abort and he doesn't want to she can tell him to suck a dick (which is what he should have done to avoid this mess in the first place )

It ain't easy being male schmoll

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You're not understanding my point, some other member made the case that it's such a horrible thing to abort. But having kids irresponsibly is horrible. To the person, to the kid, and to society.

It isn't. Why bring a person into the troubles life has to offer that didn't ask to be there, it's selfish. Why not have kids and raise them in the best environment possible with both parents and money for things like health insurance and heat for the winter? I agree, I have said this, don't have kids until you are ready/have a way to take care of them. But...like I have also said, that doesn't mean that they should die because they are in that situation. You might think it would have been better for you (not an assumption, just needed the converse to my point) but that doesn't mean they would, and we should let them have an opportunity to live, rather than....well, not...live.

Originally posted by menokokoro
And that doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

No. Cause it isn't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I have an issue with the fact that men do not have a say in whether they want to have to contribute to a child's life as a father. I think it's an unrelated issue, but potentially I don't see why a man has to financially support a child he did not want, because the woman wanted to have it. Of course he shouldn't have the right to make her abort it, but I could imagine it to be okay for him to opt out of parenthood.

According to my father, who works with a lot of cases like this, in a lot of instances men pretty much can opt out of parenthood. If a guy walks off there's not much chance of finding him or even being sure that he's the father. Teenagers, who are also a large segment of the issue, have no legal obligations in this matter where I live, the boy can leave without any consequences.

That's really my problem with letting men opt out. If the woman gets pregnant she had no choice but to deal with it (either the painful decision to have an abortion or the difficulties of raising a child). In the case where the man can opt out he ends up being much freer (his choices aren't remotely as difficult) despite holding just as much responsibility.

Originally posted by menokokoro
And that doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

Are you sure you know what hypocritical means?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to my father, who works with a lot of cases like this, in a lot of instances men pretty much can opt out of parenthood. If a guy walks off there's not much chance of finding him or even being sure that he's the father. Teenagers, who are also a large segment of the issue, have no legal obligations in this matter where I live, the boy can leave without any consequences.

That's really my problem with letting men opt out. If the woman gets pregnant she had no choice but to deal with it (either the painful decision to have an abortion or the difficulties of raising a child). In the case where the man can opt out he ends up being much freer (his choices aren't remotely as difficult) despite holding just as much responsibility.



Are you sure you know what hypocritical means? Maybe, but I don't see why that matters. A woman can put up a child for adoption, it seems to me like the same principle really. I agree it is a much easier choice, but on the other hand paying for 18 years against your will, is a pretty severe punishment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you sure you know what hypocritical means? wow, the lack of actual debating is astounding. I'm done debating on this, I feel to strongly about it, it is making me angry...I stop when I feel this way, and it won't do any good anyway.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I agree, I have said this, don't have kids until you are ready/have a way to take care of them. But...like I have also said, that doesn't mean that they should die because they are in that situation. You might think it would have been better for you (not an assumption, just needed the converse to my point) but that doesn't mean they would, and we should let them have an opportunity to live, rather than....well, not...live.

But it doesn't mean they should live either. Having kids is something biological and not some magic trick, any person and any animal (for the most part) can crank out kids. Doesn't mean all should at any time.

Well, it isn't hypocritical, it's not like you were debating the issue. You just attacked either my opinion or the opinion of a woman that shares mine as hypocritical, which seems more ad-hominem, than fair debating.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it isn't hypocritical, it's not like you were debating the issue. You just attacked either my opinion or the opinion of a woman that shares mine as hypocritical, which seems more ad-hominem, than fair debating. sigh...I have to reply to this, you are accusing me of something that isn't true. I was asking a question, that is all, I wasn't attacking anyone.

Originally posted by menokokoro
wow, the lack of actual debating is astounding. I'm done debating on this, I feel to strongly about it, it is making me angry...I stop when I feel this way, and it won't do any good anyway.

But it's literally not hypocritical, there's no possible way to look at that statement and see hypocrisy unless you don't know what the word actually means. I find that having a discussion where a person is trying to force me to speak another language while still using English (such as anything involving rights) rapidly becomes pointless, hypocrisy has a pretty standardized meaning, though.

Originally posted by menokokoro
sigh...I have to reply to this, you are accusing me of something that isn't true. I was asking a question, that is all, I wasn't attacking anyone.

You were clearly implying that what I said was hypocritical. Denying that seems silly. If you want to have an honest debate I am willing to discuss my point with you, without attacking you, but you did not do that to me, instead you phrased a question in a way to ridicule or demonize my point. You have yet to explain in any way how one could even think it hypocritical, which just further shows, that you likely just said that to make my argument seem wrong without actually debating it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You were clearly implying that what I said was hypocritical. Denying that seems silly. If you want to have an honest debate I am willing to discuss my point with you, without attacking you, but you did not do that to me, instead you phrased a question in a way to ridicule or demonize my point. You have yet to explain in any way how one could even think it hypocritical, which just further shows, that you likely just said that to make my argument seem wrong without actually debating it. That wasn't my intent, I apologize if you took it that way. My intent was simply to get my point across, I wasn't in any way trying to attack you, just trying to get you to see my point.

I meant, that willfully practicing in sexual intercourse, fully knowing that you could get pregnant, and then saying that you it is your choice to kill what you created seems hypocritical to me.

But I really am done with this, it isn't the people I'm arguing with, it is the topic that is making me angry.

Originally posted by menokokoro
That wasn't my intent, I apologize if you took it that way. My intent was simply to get my point across, I wasn't in any way trying to attack you, just trying to get you to see my point.

I meant, that willfully practicing in sexual intercourse, fully knowing that you could get pregnant, and then saying that you it is your choice to kill what you created seems hypocritical to me.

But I really am done with this, it isn't the people I'm arguing with, it is the topic that is making me angry.

Fair enough, I'll not try to engage you in it anymore then.

I like your artwork, Ladyfire and Regrets.

As far as this issue goes, if it happened in the USA, it would not surpise me in the least.

Just wondering.

What happens if the father of a child wants to keep the baby, but they mother wants it aborted?

Has there been any cases about this?

Originally posted by Mindset
Just wondering.

What happens if the father of a child wants to keep the baby, but they mother wants it aborted?

Has there been any cases about this?

the woman gets to abort it

I'd be in favor of the man having some say in the decision legally, but ultimately, it has to be up to the woman whether she keeps it or not

otherwise, the man is given control over her body, imho

I'm not sure if you're saying that's legally the case or if that's what you think would happen.

no, in a legal case, men have no say in the operation

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm not sure if you're saying that's legally the case or if that's what you think would happen. As far as I'm concerned men don't need as much say in the operation, they need to be able to opt out legally if they don't want to have a kid, instead of being forced into being a parent and being forced to pay out.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But why keep cranking out kids into this world you can't afford? It costs society money and adds to the problem. This is why having kids is the most selfish thing a person can do (we're all motivated by our own self interest). The people adopting are somewhat more selfless as they are helping. But cranking out more and more kids in our dense population doesn't help anybody. Most people don't put their kids up anyways and let them live in poverty and dysfunction.

How is going from home to home good for a kid anyways? I do agree that there are good ones out there, but there are a *lot* of bad ones, whether it's the kid of the foster parent. My friend's parents did it for a while, and a lot of those kids have troubled backgrounds.

You will find having them in this world is better then just killing them off. I am sure and I am for certain grateful that I was not killed as a baby.
Like I said it is a very selfish thing to do. And again if you don't want children do not sleep around then. It is as easy as that.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
You will find having them in this world is better then just killing them off. I am sure and I am for certain grateful that I was not killed as a baby.
Like I said it is a very selfish thing to do. And again if you don't want children do not sleep around then. It is as easy as that. You wouldn't know the difference if you weren't born.

It really just comes down to people's ego and self esteem more than anything. I am not saying people should kill them all off, or have all of them either. I agree with preventing such instances, and you can have sex without having kids, it's called birth control, people should use it. People will have sex, they just need to take care of their problem. Particularly since women have well over a dozen forms of birth control and choose if they have the kid or not. They shouldn't be having kids with losers, even if they are good in the sack.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As far as I'm concerned men don't need as much say in the operation, they need to be able to opt out legally if they don't want to have a kid, instead of being forced into being a parent and being forced to pay out.

I'm not sure a full opt out would be reasonable, as you are still responsible for the child in the first place, but the child support system as it exists does hold men hostage in many cases.

I don't think I know a perfect solution, but I really don't like the idea of courts allowing men to entirely abandon their kids. you know, personal responsibility and all that.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure a full opt out would be reasonable, as you are still responsible for the child in the first place, but the child support system as it exists does hold men hostage in many cases.

I don't think I know a perfect solution, but I really don't like the idea of courts allowing men to entirely abandon their kids. you know, personal responsibility and all that. How would it not be reasonable if women can opt out? A man is responsible for the woman being pregnant, but a kid being born is the result of a woman choosing to do so. It isn't right for a woman to able to opt out and a man not being able to. It's not right to force someone to be a parent against their will. Nothing equal about it. There's more to being a parent than mailing a check every month. Not to mention the 3/10 men or so who are paying child support or supporting a kid that isn't theirs and they've been tricked or forced to pay. It's disgusting.

If men could opt out women would be less willing to have kids if they knew they were going to be holding the bag. Not to mention men paying child support for kids that aren't theirs. If women can opt out men should be able to as well. I'm not saying he should force an abortion or even abandon the kid as he could opt out while the woman is pregnant. Why is a woman having a child with an unwilling man, it isn't good for the child.

Not to mention that women have over a dozen forms of birth control, including ru486 and the morning after pill. Men just have condoms which is one of the least effective forms of birth control. So there is always a chance, and topping that off with the sheer amount of women who lie and say they can't have kids or are on birth control, which is why I urge men to always wear condoms regardless of what she says.

yes, i agreed that there are problems with the system as is, but a full opt out system allows men to exploit women with no possible repercussions.

the reason a woman can opt out is that it is her body

Originally posted by inimalist

I don't think I know a perfect solution, but I really don't like the idea of courts allowing men to entirely abandon their kids. you know, personal responsibility and all that.

But isn't that kinda what adoption is?

Another thing I do find shit, men have no say in stopping an abortion if they should be anti-abortion or outright want to raise their would-be child by themselves.

Yet when it's the other way around, the woman wanting to go to term and the man not wanting any part, their are laws that will hold him financially responsible. I know a guy who sent a monthly check shortly after birth up until the kid turned 18; he never saw the kid and his relationship with the mother was a one-night-stand.

The second thing is what we are talking about.

I am very glad the first is the way it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The second thing is what we are talking about.

I am very glad the first is the way it is.

The second isn't fair considering the first. If I legally have no say, then I shouldn't have to pay, imo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But isn't that kinda what adoption is?

in theory, adoption give children to people who are willing to take care of them, versus just altogether abandoning any responsibility for the kid.

like, at least with adoption, you are taking responsibility to find a place for the child

Originally posted by Robtard
The second isn't fair considering the first. If I legally have no say, then I shouldn't have to pay, imo.

all im saying is that, without some kind of restriction, this allows for exploitation of women.

Originally posted by inimalist
in theory, adoption give children to people who are willing to take care of them, versus just altogether abandoning any responsibility for the kid.

like, at least with adoption, you are taking responsibility to find a place for the child

Well, you already found that person, the other parent. But yeah, I see your problem, I can't see any easy solution, but that one person has to provide for the child against their will strikes me as wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
The second isn't fair considering the first. If I legally have no say, then I shouldn't have to pay, imo.

Yes, that's what we've been saying. I am glad you also agree with our unease on the issue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you already found that person, the other parent. But yeah, I see your problem, I can't see any easy solution, but that one person has to provide for the child against their will strikes me as wrong.

oh ya, like i said, I don't know how we could make a perfect system, there just seem to be glaring problems with how it is going now, or, imho, the idea that one of the parents can just wash their hands of the whole situation (I think we disagree about the father's say in the pregnancy in the first place... though, i dont think a father should be allowed to force a woman to carry a child to term... damn, this one is tricky...)

Originally posted by inimalist
all im saying is that, without some kind of restriction, this allows for exploitation of women.

All I'm saying, the law shouldn't hold men financially responsible for babies if the law isn't willing to hear their voices in cases of abortion.

Now if some dude wants to send money for a kid he helped create, no problem. It should be a choice, not a legal binding stipulation.

Originally posted by Robtard
All I'm saying, the law shouldn't hold men financially responsible for babies if the law isn't willing to hear their voices in cases of abortion.

Now if some dude wants to send money for a kid he helped create, no problem. It should be a choice, not a legal binding stipulation.

that seems to just legalize deadbeat fathers though

I can't really accept that men can just wash their hands of any responsibility for a child just because they don't want to

until men have the ability to become pregnant, it is never going to be strictly equal, and i wish i could think of a way to make it more fair, but I can't agree with strictly voluntary child support.

however, if you pay support, you get time with the kid, I'm totally in favor of that

Originally posted by inimalist
that seems to just legalize deadbeat fathers though

I can't really accept that men can just wash their hands of any responsibility for a child just because they don't want to

until men have the ability to become pregnant, it is never going to be strictly equal, and i wish i could think of a way to make it more fair, but I can't agree with strictly voluntary child support.

however, if you pay support, you get time with the kid, I'm totally in favor of that

It does just that.

I don't like it from a moral point of view. But it's the fair thing to do, considering they have no say in abortion cases.

Well, fair is a scale, it's not equivalent after all.

From what I see, if it is a womans body, then she is reponsible for the upbringing. If the guy wants to stick around great, if not he should be responsible in anyway unless he wants to.

In sex it is up to the woman to decide if it will happen or not, otherwise it is rape.

That being the case she should be on her own and expect nothing from the man unless he wants to do it.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
In sex it is up to the woman to decide if it will happen or not, otherwise it is rape.

Unless you're saying accidental pregnancy should be treated as rape I'm not sure what you're point is here. Two people can get together without the intention of having a child and produce one anyway. Both of them are equally responsible for that.

Originally posted by inimalist
the problem with the "personhood" thing is that it is just an entire mess of special pleading. Personhood means a lot more than simply "the right to life".

Tac specifies "like a child", but even that is problematic. Children have rights that a fetus does not (what defines a child anyways, anyone under 18? ), and even then, the fact that "child" and "adult" can be differentiated means that it is just as possible to differentiate between "child" and "fetus"

Right to life is a big part of person-hood, though. Being a person demands you have a right to life. So the question isn't "is the fetus a person", it's "should it be treated like one?"

Not saying I want to get into a debate about the status of a fetus. We've done that song and dance already on the abortion thread, so no sense in getting into it here.

My point was that that is the question that should be asked. The fact that the kid might grow up poor or that he might have to live in several families is completely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is acceptable or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think she should have the right to separate that person from her body, if that leads to that person's death that is unfortunate, but not her problem.

I've heard this line or reasoning already in the abortion thread and completely disagree with it. This line of thinking leads to far too many unjust situations.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But it doesn't mean they should live either. Having kids is something biological and not some magic trick, any person and any animal (for the most part) can crank out kids. Doesn't mean all should at any time.

You are still missing the point. You claim that aborting fetuses is okay because those fetuses might grow up in bad situations. But that isn't an acceptable reason to kill anyone! For starters it is not absolute that the child will have a hard life. Even if this is strongly possible. By that line of reasoning NO ONE should be allowed to be born because EVERYONE has the possibility of having a hard life. You don't know how it will go until after you are born.

Second, most people would rather have a hard life than no life at all. Who are you to make that decision for them?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Right to life is a big part of person-hood, though. Being a person demands you have a right to life. So the question isn't "is the fetus a person", it's "should it be treated like one?"

Not saying I want to get into a debate about the status of a fetus. We've done that song and dance already on the abortion thread, so no sense in getting into it here.

My point was that that is the question that should be asked. The fact that the kid might grow up poor or that he might have to live in several families is completely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is acceptable or not.

no, totally, but now you are giving some special status to "right to life" over all other rights

I'm not saying it isn't important, however, I really don't think a rights based approach is the most appropriate for the abortion issue

I think you and I probably agree more than disagree. I wouldn't be against a woman I was with having an abortion, but it would be a HUGE deal to me, without a doubt, something that I would remember and probably recognize annually like a birthday. However, at the end of the day, its not my business what a woman does with her body, and, though I know this is the weaker argument, it is something that laws will never get rid of.

I sort of realized years ago that the law isn't the same as being moral, it is far more concerned with pragmatics. I do actually think abortion is very immoral, but not having it done with coat hangers and in back alleys seems the most pragmatic decision.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, i agreed that there are problems with the system as is, but a full opt out system allows men to exploit women with no possible repercussions.

the reason a woman can opt out is that it is her body Doesn't matter in this case, the reason she can "abort" is that it is her body, but having a kid and forcing a man to send her money has nothing to do with her body. She more irresponsible than he. It's not good for the kid or for the father. Women abort when it is convenient for them with no repercussions. Should be equal rights.

What they should do is have the man sign a waiver when he is alerted of pregnancy or the kid and give him about 90 days to decide if he wants rights. If he opts out he gets no rights.

How are the men exploiting women? Women are exploiting men all of the time for billions of dollars and not to mention the numerous men who pay for kids that aren't theirs. With the ability to opt out it wouldn't happen. A person is stupid to think that a person having sex with you means they want a kid and or marriage from you with no discussion beforehand. You don't need some broad deciding your future.

Originally posted by inimalist
all im saying is that, without some kind of restriction, this allows for exploitation of women. What do you mean by "exploitation", ooc?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
She more irresponsible than he.

People keep coming back to this. How is she more irresponsible? You need two to tango. The man is exactly as responsible for the result as the woman in the case of accidental pregnancy.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As far as I'm concerned men don't need as much say in the operation, they need to be able to opt out legally if they don't want to have a kid, instead of being forced into being a parent and being forced to pay out.
Wow. Great idea!





I am in full agreement of this.




However, I would like to submit that a very specific restriction be applied to this "opt out": the men must make a legal declaration with their local county courthouse before two "or" conditions are met:

1. The pregnancy is not past the "abort" stage AND the man has enough money to pay for the abortion. If this is true and the woman still wants to keep the child, he should be legally exempt because he is forced into keeping the child under the current system.

OR

2. Two parties agree (the man and woman OR the man and a third party) that the man did not find out about the pregnancy until after the abort window has passed so he gets to opt out (some women have come around at the 5th or 6th month mark to let their "man" know that the child is his.)



#2 would provide the most legal trouble by far. This is where you would get into "he said she said" bullshit. We already have a "robust" small claims court so it could be worked out there.





I GREATLY look forward to the "excellent" male contraceptive (MC). Vasectomy is definitely not an option for everyone. Pulling out is not one either. Relying on birth-control is not one either. I see this as an old sexist problem that does not favor men, currently. If there was a cheap, safe, and easily reversible option for men to avoid producing offspring, they would be lining up on the streets. It's not like I'm making this stuff up: Dr. Carlon Colker gets asked a stupidly large amount about future and current male contraceptives (he writes for MD.) Sure, that may seem anecdotal, but after thousands of inquiries from readers (and it comprises a significant percentage of his inquiries), it's difficult to deny the male interest in a good MC.





Still...my fascist idea of not being able to have children until approved by the state is "good" idea to me. 313

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People keep coming back to this. How is she more irresponsible? You need two to tango. The man is exactly as responsible for the result as the woman in the case of accidental pregnancy. Because she is in full control of the situation and the man has no control over a kid being born and has less options of birth control. He did play a part in her being pregnant, but a kid is born because she wants it to be born regardless of what he thinks. Women have more power over these situations, more power=more responsibility.

Numerous women lie about being on birth control, poke holes in condoms, dump the contents of used condoms into themselves etc. It's impossible for a man to be absolutely sure he won't be forced into fatherhood unless he has a vasectomy, which is permanent and they won't give it to younger people or men who don't have kids.

And numerous men act like assholes to women too.

Your argument boils down to "It's not fair that women have full biological control over the baby" and literally speaking it's not fair, no, though frankly that is far harsher on the women than the men of this world.

But it is completely irrelevant. All men KNOW the risk they are running when they have sex with someone and that's just how it is. If they don't want to face up to the responsibilities of getting a woman pregnant, they shouldn't have slept with her. That is 100% and absolutely the end of the line because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral. You may not like the idea of men being forced to pay out for kids they did not want- but tough. It is the ONLY acceptable alternative and there is not a single man in that situation who did not know what he was getting into.

This is another one of those conversations where I can be thankful that those in power are not, and never will be, stupid enough to give this sort of idea the time of day.

What about it? Women and men both act like assholes to each other, but what does that have to do with a woman having a kid and using it to extort money from a man? Men get no special protection under the law and women shouldn't either.

And my argument isn't that. I'm not saying a man should force a woman to abort, a man should have the ability to opt out just like a woman does. It isn't harsher to women. Women can choose to have a kid or not whenever they please. The child support laws here allow women to serve men papers late which means they pay child support even though the kids aren't theirs and *even* if they have a DNA test. We already have an article here of women having kids and aborting. People have kids for their own self motive and that's being shown now.

I feel that two people should discuss what happens if an "accident" occurs, and if the woman wants to keep it, he shouldn't bother with her. This is why I tell men they should avoid single mothers on top of other reasons. If she gets pregnant she'll keep the kid.

And that's an over the top notion. Why would someone having sex means they want to have kids. Very few times in someone's life do they have sex to have kids, most of the time they have sex for pleasure. They should take responsible precautions but forcing a man to be a father against his will is *not* acceptable and it doesn't make sense either. The decision has nothing to do with the "welfare" of the child, because the kid isn't better off growing up without a father in the first place. So it is about women getting money from men. It has nothing to do with the "best interest of the kid".

Not only that but you have men paying for kids that are not theirs. A man could date a woman and a woman could tell the court he was like a father figure and get him to pay for a kid that came from another man. Nothing right about that either, but as long as we have this utterly feminist state stupid laws like this will continue to come out. Women can lie, poke holes in condoms, and basically commit fraud to get money and it should stop.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow. Great idea!





I am in full agreement of this.




However, I would like to submit that a very specific restriction be applied to this "opt out": the men must make a legal declaration with their local county courthouse before two "or" conditions are met:

1. The pregnancy is not past the "abort" stage AND the man has enough money to pay for the abortion. If this is true and the woman still wants to keep the child, he should be legally exempt because he is forced into keeping the child under the current system.

OR

2. Two parties agree (the man and woman OR the man and a third party) that the man did not find out about the pregnancy until after the abort window has passed so he gets to opt out (some women have come around at the 5th or 6th month mark to let their "man" know that the child is his.)



#2 would provide the most legal trouble by far. This is where you would get into "he said she said" bullshit. We already have a "robust" small claims court so it could be worked out there.





I GREATLY look forward to the "excellent" male contraceptive (MC). Vasectomy is definitely not an option for everyone. Pulling out is not one either. Relying on birth-control is not one either. I see this as an old sexist problem that does not favor men, currently. If there was a cheap, safe, and easily reversible option for men to avoid producing offspring, they would be lining up on the streets. It's not like I'm making this stuff up: Dr. Carlon Colker gets asked a stupidly large amount about future and current male contraceptives (he writes for MD.) Sure, that may seem anecdotal, but after thousands of inquiries from readers (and it comprises a significant percentage of his inquiries), it's difficult to deny the male interest in a good MC.





Still...my fascist idea of not being able to have children until approved by the state is "good" idea to me. 313 Right I think that it should be a 90 day mark (or something like that) for him to opt out, and he has to be notified legally (what women do with child support is send the papers to a phony address and the man has no idea and then he's *forced* to pay after a certain amount of time has passed). That or whenever he's notified (so you won't have some golddigging ***** come around 5 years later and trying to get money out of you), if he opts out he forfeits all rights.

This will be a good idea, and I fully agree on the birth control part. Men need more options, and not only that if women couldn't get money from men by doing this (or by divorcing and taking anything) they'd be screwed and many of them would have to get up and work for a change, instead of just cranking out kids and getting money from the government or from a man, which is welfare as far as I'm concerned. Anyways let's hope for these changes. If men grow a set and start asking for these things we'd have changes. Instead we have these states being run by manginas and butch dykes who look to give women every advantage possible.

Oh gosh yes, you now ranting on about how states are run by 'butch dykes' makes you look like such a well-informed and rational person.

This is pathetic.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh gosh yes, you now ranting on about how states are run by 'butch dykes' makes you look like such a well-informed and rational person.

This is pathetic. But so true. Women can't claim to want equal rights, when we have so many laws directly tilted towards them and men need to step up and say something about it and get some of this changed. Women extorting men and taking their assets that don't belong to them is immoral.

Also I responded to your top post.

With 3/10 men paying for kids that aren't theirs, something should be done. I believe you also misunderstood what we were talking about. I never said a man should force a woman to abort, that's her business. A man should be given a window to opt out, and if he legally gives up rights, then he no longer has rights to a child. Something like that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your argument boils down to "It's not fair that women have full biological control over the baby" and literally speaking it's not fair, no, though frankly that is far harsher on the women than the men of this world.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But it is completely irrelevant. All men KNOW the risk they are running when they have sex with someone and that's just how it is. If they don't want to face up to the responsibilities of getting a woman pregnant, they shouldn't have slept with her. That is 100% and absolutely the end of the line because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral. You may not like the idea of men being forced to pay out for kids they did not want- but tough. It is the ONLY acceptable alternative and there is not a single man in that situation who did not know what he was getting into.

I see a very clear contradiction in your points.

It takes two to tango but only one gender has control over the situation, currently.

Sex is not always about having kids. Sometimes...it's to have sex. Sure, you can say that sex is there to make kids...but you can hardly say that's the reason sex is had most of the time it occurs. Just like eating junk food: you're not eating it because you need the calories to go hunt a giant Bison.

You claim both parties are responsible because they both had the sex. But then you say that the man isn't responsible for the decision on keeping the child. "because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral." No, what's immoral is that a man doesn't have a say but has to live with the consequence of a decision he cannot make. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

The two choices are:

1. The woman keeps the child but the man is forced to take legal responsibility for a child he does not want. The man loses his ability to choose. Win-Lose.

2. The woman does not have a say in whether or not she can keep the child and the decision is 100% the males. The female loses her ability to choose. Lose-Win.

So what is the win-win scenario?

Allowing the man to opt out.

Why is that a compromise? Because no one is forced to do something they don't want to: the woman can still keep the child and the man can opt out of the legal responsibility of her making that decision. All choices are preserved in that system and no one has their ability to choose removed from their personal decision making process.


HOWEVER! What if the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't? In that case, the woman's decision should win out because she is the one that has to carry the child to full term. That's the one exception in which there should not be "gender equality" in the decision making process.

No, that's just as bad, and still completely immoral.

There's only one question to be asked as far as the man having responsibly is concerned- did he willingly have sex with the woman? Having sex doesn't necessarily mean you want kids- but it DOES mean you are accepting the consequences. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have had sex.

If the answer to that is 'yes', then he's stuck with the kid and whatever decision the woman makes as to whether to keep it, and this is by FAR the most moral option.

You are stuck in a fictitious scenario where you think men are the losers- whereas in fact, by FAR, the biggest problem is men running away from the woman when they find she is pregnant and abandoning the baby. It took centuries to get the laws in place to stop that and now you want to start undoing it.

Like I said- no-one is going to be stupid (or immoral) enough to do it and you SHOULD feel ashamed for espousing such views, though you are clearly so lacking in rationality that you will never feel that way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see a very clear contradiction in your points.

It takes two to tango but only one gender has control over the situation, currently.

Sex is not always about having kids. Sometimes...it's to have sex. Sure, you can say that sex is there to make kids...but you can hardly say that's the reason sex is had most of the time it occurs. Just like eating junk food: you're not eating it because you need the calories to go hunt a giant Bison.

You claim both parties are responsible because they both had the sex. But then you say that the man isn't responsible for the decision on keeping the child. "because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral." No, what's immoral is that a man doesn't have a say but has to live with the consequence of a decision he cannot make. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

The two choices are:

1. The woman keeps the child but the man is forced to take legal responsibility for a child he does not want. The man loses his ability to choose. Win-Lose.

2. The woman does not have a say in whether or not she can keep the child and the decision is 100% the males. The female loses her ability to choose. Lose-Win.

So what is the win-win scenario?

Allowing the man to opt out.

Why is that a compromise? Because no one is forced to do something they don't want to: the woman can still keep the child and the man can opt out of the legal responsibility of her making that decision. All choices are preserved in that system and no one has their ability to choose removed from their personal decision making process.


HOWEVER! What if the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't? In that case, the woman's decision should win out because she is the one that has to carry the child to full term. That's the one exception in which there should not be "gender equality" in the decision making process.

No, you are completely wrong. There is no contradiction, only your immoral ramblings.

It is irrelevant as to what your sexual intention was. If you have sex, you accept the risk of there being kids. End of story.

It is not even SLIGHTLY immoral that a man has no say over whether the woman keeps the baby. On the contrary, it would be immoral if he DID, as he has no moral right to terminate what is in her body. What it is, quite simply, is a morally neutral fact of life that the man knew when he had sex with her.

But then you have already identified your views as being on the insane fringe so I am safely discounting everything you say.

The both of you are in a very poor moral state to be considering this seriously. Like I say- nothing remotely like it will ever happen, and pushing for it will always be rightly condemned.

I'm not in a poor moral state, I'm in an honest moral state. Women don't have kids unless their is money in the picture, they aren't biologically designed to do so. If there is no money coming from somewhere (the government, a man) they don't have as many of them. This is why there are less births in a bad economy and less marriages. There are less men who can pay up now and women don't have as many financially suitable options.

Having a kid with a man who is not interested and not involved isn't good for the child anyways, so why would extorting a man for money make any difference?

Again, I'm not saying men should force women to abort, that is immoral. There is a hard double standard here which boils down to: "It's the woman's kid, but the man should still pay." Basically making a man a walking wallet in the eyes of the state.

Not to mention women commit damn near 80% of divorces in this country and take money from men there too, it's quite obvious women do these things for money, which is why they want to be married in the first place, as there is no benefit for a man to get married in this society.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's just as bad, and still completely immoral.

There's only one question to be asked as far as the man having responsibly is concerned- did he willingly have sex with the woman? Having sex doesn't necessarily mean you want kids- but it DOES mean you are accepting the consequences. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have had sex.

If the answer to that is 'yes', then he's stuck with the kid and whatever decision the woman makes as to whether to keep it, and this is by FAR the most moral option.l

You are stuck in a fictitious scenario where you think men are the losers- whereas in fact, by FAR, the biggest problem is men running away from the woman when they find she is pregnant and abandoning the baby. It took centuries to get the laws in place to stop that and now you want to start undoing it.

Like I said- no-one is going to be stupid (or immoral) enough to do it and you SHOULD feel ashamed for espousing such views, though you are clearly so lacking in rationality that you will never feel that way. That's ridiculous though. Saying people should never have sex if they don't want to have kids? People are going to have sex regardless, just like they are going to eat and sleep. Women can have sex with whomever they please, but men can't? Out of the thousands of times a person has sex in their lives, only a small percentage is for child bearing, the vast majority of the time is for pleasure.

It is nothing moral about it. How is a man mailing a check every month good for a kid? It isn't, and it isn't good for a man. It is good for the woman only who just wants money from a man. Women can't say they're independent and then extort money from men. Not only that but they don't have to prove what they spent the money on and usually spend it on themselves.

Men are the losers. Because they have no choice. Women win, because they can have a kid whenever they want by whomever they want and force men to pay. Even if the kid isn't theirs. Women can make pay even if the man came into the picture and the kid is by another man and the guy has a DNA test.

Women are irresponsible for choosing irresponsible men and I don't feel sorry for them. If you choose to sleep with a womanizer, a felon, a drug addict, etc then you knew what you were getting yourself into. Women choose these men because they want to be with a "bad boy" and then complain later.

When men are given the same rights as women (which they should) there would be a lot less of this happening and a lot less fraud. I don't feel "ashamed" and feminist shaming tactics won't work on me. There's nothing immoral about equal rights. Women should not be able to have a kid and extort a man for money. If a man wants the kid and she doesn't he's still screwed. You seem to be under the impression that women are innocent lambs and that they are damsels in distress women many have kids *for* the sake of keeping a man around or getting money out of a man, whether it's 200 a month or 20,000 a month. A man should not be paying 100's of thousands of dollars for something he had no say in, that's immoral. *Especially* when he was lied to about birth control or that she couldn't have a kid. That's fraud. But that's ok too because women are all innocent and men are the bad guys.

No, see, your attitude is utterly mal-adjusted. It is not even vaguely ridiculous to say that that if you were not prepared to have kids with someone you shouldn't have slept with them. Although it might not be your intent, you know- you know full well- that having kids was a possible outcome and that has to factor into your decision. And of course people will go ahead and do it anyway! And if they have kids as a result, they have to face up to that responsibility.

That you cannot see this simple moral (and almost globally accepted) fact is why you have this so badly wrong.

Mailing the kid a cheque is infinitely better than mailing nothing, and again we have all of single-mother history to back me up on this one. This is a right we fought for as a society.

Men may or may not be literally the losers, if you want to frame it that way. As I said, I think by far women are the losers with the biological facts of pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant- those ARE the facts and men have to live with them. Allowing them to opt-out of parenthood makes it worse, not better- again, history bears me out.

You don't feel sorry for women- fine. I'll add it to the list of extremely unattractive facets of yourself you are presenting in this argument.

Btw, saying you are not in a poor moral state kinda loses its force when you immediately afterwards claim that women only ever have kids if money is involved, combined with all your anti-women ranting you have done so far. Again, you should be ashamed. Though most people trying to claim to be 'honest' are generally just using that as a cover for being wrong.

In the end- you get a woman pregnant, you are stuck with her decision. This is good, it is moral, and if you don't like it, tough shit. Your alternatives are feeble and morally inferior. You had sex with her, and you knew what you were doing. That's that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, see, your attitude is utterly mal-adjusted. It is not even vaguely ridiculous to say that that if you were not prepared to have kids with someone you shouldn't have slept with them. Although it might not be your intent, you know- you know full well- that having kids was a possible outcome and that has to factor into your decision. And of course people will go ahead and do it anyway! And if they have kids as a result, they have to face up to that responsibility.

That you cannot see this simple moral (and almost globally accepted) fact is why you have this so badly wrong.

Mailing the kid a cheque is infinitely better than mailing nothing, and again we have all of single-mother history to back me up on this one. This is a right we fought for as a society.

Men may or may not be literally the losers, if you want to frame it that way. As I said, I think by far women are the losers with the biological facts of pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant- those ARE the facts and men have to live with them. Allowing them to opt-out of parenthood makes it worse, not better- again, history bears me out.

You don't feel sorry for women- fine. I'll add it to the list of extremely unattractive facets of yourself you are presenting in this argument.

Btw, saying you are not in a poor moral state kinda loses its force when you immediately afterwards claim that women only ever have kids if money is involved. Again, you should be ashamed. I think you are elevating yourself to one of the most unpleasant and immoral posers I've seen around here, based on these views. It is utterly ridiculous. I believe men should discuss with women about these options, but people are going to have sex, this is the 21st century.

Globally accepted? By manginas and feminazis. Men don't have over a dozen forms of birth control and only have a temporary one which is one of the least effective forms, and a permenant one which doesn't work for all men even if they wanted it. Women have well over a dozen forms including RU486 and the morning after pill. So if a kid is born it isn't an "accident" it is because they wanted it to be born.

It isn't better at all, it isn't going to the kid in most cases. Single mother is a good reason? Single mother hood is a bad thing to put upon a kid and it nothing to be proud of, I would never advocate something like that. It isn't good for the kid, it isn't good for the man, it isn't really good for the woman either, and it isn't good for society. Women who call themselves "proud single mothers" and feel they don't need a man are utterly selfish and stupid. Kids raised by single parents are not only more likely to be poor. They are more likely to grow up in crime infested areas, more likely to be molested, more likely to have depression, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be a felon or a criminal in general, more likely to be a teenage parent. Not only is extorting a man bad, extorting the system and having responsible individuals like myself pay for these irresponsible fools is even worse. People like me who chose not to have kids because I had goals I wanted to accomplish and kids would interfere with that.

Men are the losers, the kids lose, the women lose when a kid is born like that, and society loses, because you have another kid in lack being brought into society that is going to cost everyone either by money or by them having problems later. I would never want that for a kid.

I can pull stats on all of this and I have in the past. History has never brought out that single motherhood was good for kids.

And it's extremely unattractive that you'd feel sorry for someone who chose to spread their legs for a loser. Women don't want responsible guys who aren't as attractive or "exciting" they want men who are "bad boys" and then they choose to have kids with them and complain. Please, whose fault it is? Who had the choices in that situation. It's hypocritical to say women should have more rights and then not hold them responsible for something they had full power over. I know several women like this in real life from the past who have multiple kids with irresponsible men and complain he's irresponsible. But they *knew* he was irresponsible. They're just morons and just contribute to the problem. Women are not innocent little lambs who need extra protection, if they are as capable as they say they are they should prove it.

They do have kids when there are adequate financial resources. They are engineered biologically to find financial support. If women weren't getting welfare, alimony, child support and had to pay themselves they'd be less likely to have them, that's a fact. Born out by the fact whenever they give more "assistance" to these women, they have more kids. Now they have schools around here that have built in babysitters for these little whores who have kids at 16 and 17. What a waste of tax dollars. Women who do this should become pariahs. It isn't good for men, women, children, society, or people who choose not to have children. It isn't morally superior, it is immoral and unconstitutional to give men and women unequal rights, all while women are the ones who wanted equal rights to begin with. With more and more men raised by single mothers I'm not surprised this mindset exists. Men are brainwashed into thinking women deserve special rules and rights on top of everything else they get and that they are innocent. Women can kill their husbands and children and get away with it because of mindsets like this. Nothing feeble about my decision because I have common sense the best protection of all. I knew I didn't want to have kids because of my company but it doesn't mean men who aren't as smart should get shafted because the corrupt system exploits men. Tough on them when they make more birth control options for men (which they need) they won't be able to spread their legs and get a check anymore like they have been doing.

See, again, your talk of 'manginas and feminazis' puts your entire attitude in perspective. Other than pointing out that this is in fact the considered opinion of civilised western society after much careful consideration of the issue and your position that it is being imposed so is, again, utterly idiotic, all I can do is refer you back to what I already said. Your other words are, literally, of no value. All you are trying to do is give license for men to avoid their responsibilities. Feeble.

As I say- luckily, such immoral views will never be given serious consideration.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you are completely wrong. There is no contradiction, only your immoral ramblings.

Come on, now. I thought we patched things up and agreed not to get like this with each other?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is irrelevant as to what your sexual intention was. If you have sex, you accept the risk of there being kids. End of story.

To you, it is the end of the story. Obviously, that's not the case for others. As intelligent adults, we will have differing opinions.

Unless you mean that there's an objective morality (moral universalism)? In which case, I am open to your reasoning/justification for such a concept as it pertains to the topic.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is not even SLIGHTLY immoral that a man has no say over whether the woman keeps the baby. On the contrary, it would be immoral if he DID, as he has no moral right to terminate what is in her body. What it is, quite simply, is a morally neutral fact of life that the man knew when he had sex with her.

This was never in question by me. In fact, I argued that the man should not be allowed to force her to keep and I implicitly stated that he should not be allowed to make her abort.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But then you have already identified your views as being on the insane fringe so I am safely discounting everything you say.

That's definitely your prerogative but I don't think you understood my position based on the previous summary you just gave.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The both of you are in a very poor moral state to be considering this seriously. Like I say- nothing remotely like it will ever happen, and pushing for it will always be rightly condemned.

I consider your perspective to be morally wrong. I think your position is sexist and restrictive of individual freedoms. It's quite disturbing, actually but only because of how adamant you are about your position being a moral absolute.

Lastly, you say nothing like it will ever happen (keep in mind that I am using your own description of what you think I was talking about...namely...the man forcing her to keep or abort. Again, that's NOT my position)? I disagree:

http://www.lifenews.com/2007/02/19/int-188/

"An Italian judge has ordered a thirteen year-old girl to have an abortion because her parents are opposed to their daughter giving birth. The decision relies on laws in Italy that allow parents to make the pregnancy decisions for their teenage children."

It looks like reason is ALMOST getting through in western societies. I would like to see more autonomy from the females (even if they are underage) while also giving the males more autonomy as I've outlined. Rightly so, a parent is part of the decision making process for underage pregnancies. I feel that in an underage case, there should be 3 votes: 1 from the legal guardian/parent, one from the potential father, and one from the potential mother.

Here's another case where a Judge ordered a probationary conditional to not have any more kids because she couldn't handle it:

"Judge Charlie Baird has ordered the end to childbearing as a stipulation of the Texas mother's 10-year probation sentence on charges of injury to a child by omission."

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2008/09/25/texas-judge-orders-woman-to-stop-bearing-children.aspx

So it would seem that the idea of "nothing remotely like it" is actually not true because we have both sides" Forced to have an abortion and Forced to not have anymore kids. Those are close to the position you described.

What I would like to see is further social development among a less sexist and more intellectually conducive system where all parties maintain maximum decision making abilities. I feel that the current system of "force the man" is a bit socially outdated. It is, however, not as outdated as the once held position of "it's entirely the man's decision". That position is only superseded by the most archaic of all positions which was "there is no decision."


I'm sure you agree that those last two are outdated, but you don't think the third to last is outdated. I do. I think we will get to a less sexist reproduction system as technology improves.