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.
Well, why are the women having unprotected sex if they know it can result in a pregnancy?
Why are men? IMO, if neither used BC, both made bad choices. The question is who gets the ultimate decision about the result of those bad decisions. If Texas has their way, they do.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Can you focus? WTH does beating people up have to do with this disucssion? NOTHING.
The question remains why all of the pro abortion posters REFUSE to hold women accountable for their lack of use of BC?
Why is that?
I don't think anyone here is pro-abortion. (Well, except the pine tree poster who seems decidedly pro-abortion).
And from what I can see, everyone who is prochoice is fighting mightily to hold BOTH accountable in this conversation, not just women.
In fact, what I'm arguing is a woman who is pregnant has every right to decide to carry the baby and nurture the child, and shouldn't be forced to abort just because the baby daddy doesn't want to own up. That's my point. Also, she should be able to abort even if the baby daddy is standing there at the moment saying he wants a baby.
Venice, you're all over the map here. At once talking about your sister who refused to carry a baby despite the daddy wanting her to, to blaming women for being pregnant. Kind of scattershot.
They're in a marriage. Everything they produce in a marriage whether it's a child or a house is owned equally.
We're talking about casual relationships outside marriage.
And no he cannot force her to abort, he can make his wishes known, that's it.
If this is the stance, of course men make their wishes known so what's with the butt hurt over women being able to choose abortion?
I assume for you it is the state "enforced" child support payments when the father has no desire to have the child.
I agree with you that in situations outside of marriage or long term committed relationships a man should not have to pay child support for an unintended pregnancy he did not want and has no desire to be involved. (In most cases such as this he never ends up paying any significant amount if any CS anyway.) But at the same time he should never, ever, be allowed any contact with this child he and if at any time he initiates contact should be fined and forced to pay back child support to the time of the child birth and until the child turns 18.
When my sister was pregnant with their third child SHE wanted to abort, he wanted the baby. She had an abortion. Question: Should she have been able to kill THEIR baby when the father wanted to keep it?
You answer my question first.
You seem to avoid answering any questions that might contradict you agenda.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50665
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
If this is the stance, of course men make their wishes known so what's with the butt hurt over women being able to choose abortion?
I assume for you it is the state "enforced" child support payments when the father has no desire to have the child.
I agree with you that in situations outside of marriage or long term committed relationships a man should not have to pay child support for an unintended pregnancy he did not want and has no desire to be involved. (In most cases such as this he never ends up paying any significant amount if any CS anyway.) But at the same time he should never, ever, be allowed any contact with this child he and if at any time he initiates contact should be fined and forced to pay back child support to the time of the child birth and until the child turns 18.
But things arent always that cut and dried.
In that case, the tax payer is on the hook, which isn't right either.
How about in the case of a man who has several women suing for child support, all proven by DNA, should he also not have to shell out support, and should be able to continue fathering babies he's not supporting?
There are LOTS of women who forego child support, because they don't want that guy around and they manage to financially support their child alone, but for those who can't, I don't see a better resource of $ than the father himself.
You answer my question first.
You seem to avoid answering any questions that might contradict you agenda.
You believe men should have no say. I believe they should.
You believe that women bear no responsibility in sex, lack of BC, or the aftermath of sex, and that it's all the man's responsibility.
You believe women are helpless and irresponsible and should stay that way so they can get abortions.
Pretty much sums it up.
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.
