U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-07-2009, 08:58 PM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,666 times
Reputation: 345

Advertisements

so women have to "bear" the child during gestation? and because of that men have no say in the matter? fine, than IF a man makes it known he does not wish the keep the child, the woman takes on all responsibility. simple as that. its funny the only argument ever given is " dont have sex then" by that logic if i get hit by a car while driving, i am at fault because i shouldn't have been on the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2009, 02:21 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,907 posts, read 34,973,454 times
Reputation: 42369
I agree that men have the short end of the stick, but I don't see any way around it.

If the woman wants the baby, but the man doesn't, the choices as I see them are:

1. The woman has to have an abortion. I don't see that being codified into law.
2. The woman has to raise the child by herself, without financial support from the father. This is not in the state's best interest. We don't want more women on welfare. There's quite enough squawking about it now.
3. The woman has to give the child up for adoption if she is unable to care for it herself. See #2. We don't need more kids in the foster system.

All arguments that the woman should have known better, should have been more financially responsible and so on apply to the man. He is just as easily able to say no as she is. I don't care if she promised to have an abortion - maybe she changed her mind, and you can't make her. I'm sorry if you used protection - it's not foolproof. I'm sorry if you had other plans - she probably did too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 04:38 PM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,666 times
Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
I agree that men have the short end of the stick, but I don't see any way around it.

If the woman wants the baby, but the man doesn't, the choices as I see them are:

1. The woman has to have an abortion. I don't see that being codified into law.
2. The woman has to raise the child by herself, without financial support from the father. This is not in the state's best interest. We don't want more women on welfare. There's quite enough squawking about it now.
3. The woman has to give the child up for adoption if she is unable to care for it herself. See #2. We don't need more kids in the foster system.

All arguments that the woman should have known better, should have been more financially responsible and so on apply to the man. He is just as easily able to say no as she is. I don't care if she promised to have an abortion - maybe she changed her mind, and you can't make her. I'm sorry if you used protection - it's not foolproof. I'm sorry if you had other plans - she probably did too.
after that longwinded rant, you basically said, "i like having the man bent over a barrel."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 06:22 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,907 posts, read 34,973,454 times
Reputation: 42369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcinsov View Post
after that longwinded rant, you basically said, "i like having the man bent over a barrel."
Longwinded? Dear man, you must have no stamina at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 08:50 PM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,666 times
Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
Longwinded? Dear man, you must have no stamina at all.
if i find the topic attractive i can usually post a second time in a short period of rest
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 06:53 AM
 
8,305 posts, read 8,580,329 times
Reputation: 25924
These discussions often miss the point in another important way. We aren't just talking about men and women. We are talking about a child who is not responsible for the decisions two adults made to bring him/her into the world.

You know, I think sometimes more thought ought to be given to alternatives to a child being raised by either of its biological parents. Society indulges in this presumption that a child is better off being raised by biological parents and its just not always true.

One alternative that would certainly upset the living daylights out of most people would be to sell off the property of both of the biological parents in situations where they were irresponsible and use the money to provide a home, food, and shelter for the child. We could than select who the parents are going to be. Pretty radical huh? And unlikely to happen. However, it does highlight a point. This is not about parents. Its about the rights of a child to have a decent life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 10:07 AM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,666 times
Reputation: 345
it IS about the parents too. i don't know what your financial situation is, but i wonder if you have ever known what it is like to not be able to pay your own bills let alone someone else that you have no say in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 12:34 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,907 posts, read 34,973,454 times
Reputation: 42369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcinsov View Post
it IS about the parents too. i don't know what your financial situation is, but i wonder if you have ever known what it is like to not be able to pay your own bills let alone someone else that you have no say in.
You did have a say, though, when you had sex. The taxpayers don't control whether you have sex, so don't make us pay for your kid. That's all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 12:53 PM
 
742 posts, read 1,048,666 times
Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
You did have a say, though, when you had sex. The taxpayers don't control whether you have sex, so don't make us pay for your kid. That's all.
actually darling don;t blame me, blame the selfish woman that for whatever reasons moral, religious or cowardice CHOSE to keep the child even though the man didn't want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 04:30 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,907 posts, read 34,973,454 times
Reputation: 42369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcinsov View Post
actually darling don;t blame me, blame the selfish woman that for whatever reasons moral, religious or cowardice CHOSE to keep the child even though the man didn't want to.
Sure, if that makes you feel better. I'm still not footing the bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top