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.
I guess people try to dodge the question. Quite sad. If the baby is carried to term , who is going to pay?
Stop with the cowardly non-sequitur side attacks. If a woman has financial issues are you going to just allow it? Or do you believe that it is legitimate to force others to pay? That was the obvious question that I raised.
So rather than address the point people would rather make snide comments. Quite sad.
This is CD for Gods sake... what did you expect?
That's like expecting the majority of people in here to be rational. Common sense is like gold... it is where you find it, and brother the gold in here is rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027
I guess people try to dodge the question. Quite sad. If the baby is carried to term , who is going to pay?
It should be the parents. If they can afford to tap the nasty unprotected, they should be able to pay the tab when it comes due, no matter which course they choose.
Your 'question' is full of flaws and assumptions. It can't be answered unless one is first willing to accept your opinions as fact. Your distaste for women is apparent in this thread as well as others that you've started at this board. You don't hide it very well. So there will be no answer that suits you that doesn't involve castigating women for irresponsibly getting pregnant. Which leads me to my next point. Women can't get pregnant alone. So if how to finance children is REALLY your concern, maybe a better question to ask is "why don't men make better efforts to avoid impregnating women?"
Your 'question' is full of flaws and assumptions. It can't be answered unless one is first willing to accept your opinions as fact. Your distaste for women is apparent in this thread as well as others that you've started at this board. You don't hide it very well. So there will be no answer that suits you that doesn't involve castigating women for irresponsibly getting pregnant. Which leads me to my next point. Women can't get pregnant alone. So if how to finance children is REALLY your concern, maybe a better question to ask is "why don't men make better efforts to avoid impregnating women?"
You just happen to want to make silly notions.
First of all that I don't hate women at all. Every single woman I have ever known has not received anything negative from me. I just won't accept illogical nonsense even if it is being put forth by a woman. If you have really looked at my posts, then you would notice that I talk to the men the exact same way, no one has ever said that I hate men.
Next if you feel that it your answer won't castigate women for getting pregnant, so what? The same is true for men isn't it? No one is denying that men aren't equally responsible for the act. The idea that it is no one's fault is just plain nonsense; the baby didn't get here by magic. I don't have a problem with accepting responsibility for myself and all of my actions and I don't feel any need to protect men from at the very least accepting responsibility for theirs. So if you are worried because you can't get out of the argument without accepting responsibility then that is just plain cowardice. You are essentially admitting that you can't make a rational case without responsibility.
Also the idea that I am not taking all situations into account when considering abortion is just the simple non-sequitur nonsense that I was mentioning. I said right in the beginning that it isn't the only reason and to leave the argument to the side for the sake of the discussion. So stop with that nonsense.
Next this conversation does happen in politics all the time to ignore it would simply be foolish. Even Sweden is thinking about letting the man be able to walk away from the child if he does not want to have it.
I guess people try to dodge the question. Quite sad. If the baby is carried to term , who is going to pay?
Stop with the cowardly non-sequitur side attacks. If a woman has financial issues are you going to just allow it? Or do you believe that it is legitimate to force others to pay? That was the obvious question that I raised.
What do you mean by "allow it"? What are your going to do, means test pregnant women and if they can't afford the child force them to abort or force them to put it up for adoption?
And, "who is going to pay?"
Well, if the parents can't afford to provide proper care for the child, for whatever reason, what do you think should be done with that child?
What do you mean by "allow it"? What are your going to do, means test pregnant women and if they can't afford the child force them to abort or force them to put it up for adoption?
And, "who is going to pay?"
Well, if the parents can't afford to provide proper care for the child, for whatever reason, what do you think should be done with that child?
What is your solution?
Maybe we'll just take women's right to vote away like it used to be and us men will decide this issue.
Did it ever dawn on you that if it were up to men there would be more abortions instead of less?
This is probably true.
Quote:
What do you mean by "allow it"? What are your going to do, means test pregnant women and if they can't afford the child force them to abort or force them to put it up for adoption?
And, "who is going to pay?"
Well, if the parents can't afford to provide proper care for the child, for whatever reason, what do you think should be done with that child?
What is your solution?
When I say "allow it" I generally mean that you wouldn't force anyone to help her. To be completely honest that would be the most consistent view. Essentially no one would be forced to take care of the child, not the mother, not the father, nor society.
However that is not my personal opinion.
So if a woman (assuming she didn't want to abort) has a child, I wouldn't let a man completely go free. He would have to pay something. Maybe I wouldn't jump on him extremely hard if he made notice that he didn't want to pay, but I would still require something from him. Yes, this is to some degree limiting a man's freedom. However if we are going to start taking someone's freedom away, it just seems to be justifiable to start with the man who actually had the baby. Then yes I would also force society to pitch something in. Why? Because I simply would regard the two as something worth keeping; and so even if I have to force other to do it, I would force them to pay something.
I definitely wouldn't force an abortion, since that would be sinning against two. And I wouldn't force an adoption, since that just seems asinine to me - you are basically placing the whole burden against strangers who probably don't care about the baby as much as the mother does. There are other children who have no one who could take a potential willing parent.
This goes directly to the rationale with any form of welfare of redistribution it seems to me. In a purely natural rights moral perspective you really can almost never force anyone to help another person. And to be perfectly honest, that argument isn't dishonest or invalid. I just am somewhat practical. I think that if society has the ability to (And the US does) provide for someone who has a legitimate need, I would simply push others to pitch in. Sure I could grumble and complain because I don't have any kids and I could say that I shouldn't be forced to pitch in. However if the government is going to force people to pay, I would think children would be the one exception that I could overlook it. This is giving somewhat more rights to a woman because she can literally choose to keep the baby and have others to help her, while the man isn't afforded that same position. However unless you are willing to go all the way and allow children to work again then I think that view is unnecessary in a society like the US where we can provide for them.
In poorer societies like Bangladesh, I would temper that. I would do so because the ability to provide is so much lower that I do think that children would have to work in order to get out of the very primitive living conditions. But this isn't Bangladesh.
I wanted to see if anyone else would say, "Sure let the man go free." MGTOW guys sure seem to have that attitude. Or maybe they have a different and more reasonable solution. Or maybe not, you could be different. But in some way, someone will have to provide. I think it's justifiable to force the man to do something unless he has a good reason not to. Then the rest of us can just overlook the outrage, especially since I have to pay for all kinds of other crap that I don't agree with anyway. (Like Iraq)
The most important "poverty" in this discussion is the "poverty" or lack of spiritual guidance of a moral family grounded in faith in God. The more humanity tries to turn away from God, the worse things get. The facts are right in front of us every day. Humans are spiritual beings, take their faith away and they whither like a flower in the hot sun with no water.
To kill your own child in this way, this terrible, medieval way, is such an slap in the face of all that is good in the world, I have no words for it. To look into the face of a baby is to see God, I honestly believe that. And they are killing them before they have a chance to change the world. It's just a terrible situation.
What you are saying is that people should believe in an unknown entity, sort of like a crutch, instead of believing in themselves? And medieval is right, actually since ancient times.....this is how long abortion has been around. And it will always be around legal or not.
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.
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.
