Originally posted by Bardock42sigh...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.
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 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 Bardock42That 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.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by MindsetAs 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 if you're saying that's legally the case or if that's what you think would happen.
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 ADarksideJediYou wouldn't know the difference if you weren't born.
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.
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 inimalistHow 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.
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.
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.
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.