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.
1. So maybe sperm donors, et cetera should pay child support as well?
These men do not have the breeding to be sperm donors (IQ, education, physicality, beauty, upbringing). Sorry, no passing go and no collecting $200 from Jane taxpayer.
Quote:
2. What exactly do you mean by this? I don't see the /sense in punishing males who sign such contracts any more than I do in pushing sperm donors. Of course, if you want these males to get sterilized before they have sex if they want to get an opt-out from paying child support, then I will alo support this idea.
I would support forced vassectomies for any man that has a child I'm supporting. Same goes for women. These men have no business ejacating inside any woman. I do agree with your idea. Though there wouldn't be a need of a contract if sterilized.
you know, it's stuff like this that undermines the pro-choice position. Both of these parties need to grow up. The woman needs to own up to her decision of having the baby and prepare to be a single mother instead of trying to lasso the op. The op needs to own up that sometimes in life, lapses in judgment such as that won't simply poof and be gone. If the op doesn't want to have baby, he would have insisted on condoms regardless of what she said or pull the hell out. Without getting explicit a grown man should be aware of his body and the sensation of when he is about to ejaculate. I can tell you that my husband, after years of being sexually active, knew when he was getting to that point.
1. You decide to have unprotected sex, sign a worthless piece of paper, and them place the blame on her when she gets pregnant, when YOU had sex with her. YOU. Like you're surprised she got pregnant?
2. Like you're surprised she opts not to have an abortion?
3. I hope she dumps you, she and that kid deserve better than you.
1. She let him have unprotected sex with her. As for that piece of paper, I don't see why it needs to be worthless.
2. Well, she did make a promise to him, and the decision not to get an abortion and thus (using the pro-abortion choice view/definition of personhood) to create a new person was her and only her unilteral final decision.
3. This kind of language isn't exactly helpful here.
1. These men do not have the breeding to be sperm donors (IQ, education, physicality, beauty, upbringing). Sorry, no passing go and no collecting $200 from Jane taxpayer.
2. I would support forced vassectomies for any man that has a child I'm supporting. Same goes for women.
3. These men have no business ejacating inside any woman.
1. You need all of these things to become sperm donors? Anyway, how about just to be safe, we only allow males to donate sperm to females/couples who can finally sustain the children of these sperm donors without taxpayer help as well?
2. That works, and a RISUG/Vasalgel injection can likewise work as well in regards to this.
1. You need all of these things to become sperm donors? Anyway, how about just to be safe, we only allow males to donate sperm to females/couples who can finally sustain the children of these sperm donors without taxpayer help as well?
2. That works, and a RISUG/Vasalgel injection can likewise work as well in regards to this.
3. Except for trans-women.
Yes, you need to meet certain criteria, though I suppose it depends on the bank. Women and couples are paying big bucks for fertility treatments, so I wouldn't be concerned about those people. Wouldn't worry about trannies, men, dolls, whatever.
I would support forced vassectomies for any man that has a child I'm supporting. Same goes for women. These men have no business ejacating inside any woman. I do agree with your idea. Though there wouldn't be a need of a contract if sterilized.
Forget about preventing them from voting, just totally sterilize all poor people, and people who don't think like you do.
1. Yes, you need to meet certain criteria, though I suppose it depends on the bank. Women and couples are paying big bucks for fertility treatments, so I wouldn't be concerned about those people.
2. Wouldn't worry about trannies, men, dolls, whatever.
1. Oh, OK, so these individuals who raise these sperm donors' children (at least usually) have enough money to raise these children without receiving any child support from these sperm donors themselves? If so, then this is a very good thing.
Forget about preventing them from voting, just totally sterilize all poor people, and people who don't think like you do.
You sound like a Tea-party SUPER-HERO.
I think that he/she might have meant that he/she would support having males who don't want to pay child support get a vasectomy beforehand and/or right afterwards (in case the first vasectomy doesn't work). Thus, if one changes the words "forced vasectomies" to "voluntary vasectomies", then his/her position here seems pretty reasonable and seems like something which I support.
Supporting forced sterilization is as horrifying as supporting forced procreation. You also "support" the elderly, do you want them put to sleep?
Despite his/her unfortunate use of language, I don't think that he/she literally meant forced sterilization.
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.
