Why won't she look at her choice?

[The Ugly]

what the liberal posters do not like about my scenario is that its FAIR.  they've been conditioned to believe that everything surrounding abortion should hinge on the opinion that the man is the bad guy and woman is the helpless victim.  so all the laws put in place that are blatantly unfair to men are blindly defended without thinking through what's fair to both parties.  i'll repeat.

NEITHER PARTY SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL BEFORE A CHILD IS BORN.  decisions should be made by both parties without either party being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

What world are you living in, guy? Suppose I want the kid and she chooses to abort. Can I force her, against her will, to have the baby? No, so is the result fair to both parties? It's never gonna be totally fair, impossible, so we settle on the next best thing, or battle endlessly for we think that might be.

You're coming across like it's some easy fix.

[Straw Man]

wow you sound like Ronald fucking Reagan.

you sound like a guy who thinks the rest of us should be financially responsible for the consequences of your choices and actions

[bears]

you sound like a guy who thinks the rest of us should be financially responsible for the consequences of your choices and actions

how so?

[Primemuscle]

sure thing

how about this.  If a woman get's pregnant and has a kid then both she and the father are financially responsible for the child

Since neither you, I or anyone other than those two are the parents they are the only ones who are responsible for financially supporting that child

agreed?

Stating this doesn't make it happen in every case, unfortunately.

[pluck]

There you go then...

The welfare system encourages multiple kids.  Eliminate the "freebies for kids" programs and there won't be "welfare government aid bottom feeders" as you call them.  So in short, the welfare system and abortion stance of liberals clash and the welfare system negates abortion.

Sort of a clusterfuck post ??

Anyways...my point is this.

I'm a social liberal, people should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.
With that being said...how far do you go back and define "life" ? You can argue this point until the cows come home and then there will be someone who goes a step further and says "technically it's when a man's schwanz enters a vagine". ...then it becomes a cluster fuck.

I'm 100% for abortion. It should be someone's choice and I'm for it for financial reasons.

This year something like close to 40,000 kids were loaded up on buses without parents from Honduras, Mexico & Guatemala to the US. Obviously these kids aren't wanted and can't be taken for by their parents. ...why the fuck would you bring a child into this world without being able to provide for it and give it the best life you can possibly give them? It's a fucked up subject when you really sit down and think about it.

[bears]

Sort of a clusterfuck post ??

Anyways...my point is this.

I'm a social liberal, people should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.
With that being said...how far do you go back and define "life" ? You can argue this point until the cows come home and then there will be someone who goes a step further and says "technically it's when a man's schwanz enters a vagine". ...then it becomes a cluster fuck.

I'm 100% for abortion. It should be someone's choice and I'm for it for financial reasons.
This year something like close to 40,000 kids were loaded up on buses without parents from Honduras, Mexico & Guatemala to the US. Obviously these kids aren't wanted and can't be taken for by their parents. ...why the fuck would you bring a child into this world without being able to provide for it and give it the best life you can possibly give them? It's a fucked up subject when you really sit down and think about it.

agree.  my point is that if women KNEW before the baby was born if the father wanted to take care of it, she can make an informed choice about whether or not they can raise the child.  if the women KNOWS that the father will NOT take responsibility, (this includes him signing away all of his parental rights and liability), and she knows there is no hope of suing him for child support, she is more likely to make the choice to abort, saving herself and society a lot of money and reducing crime.

the only argument ANYONE could possibly have against this system is if they fundamentally do not agree with abortion and believe it to be murder and/or a dangerous procedure, which we've all learned that it is not.

[2Thick]

I agree about not having sex if you cannot handle the consequences or be responsible enough to use birth control. People should not expect taxpayers to shoulder the burdens of the consequences of their actions, and they sure as hell should not expect their employers to either.

[Primemuscle]

agree.  my point is that if women KNEW before the baby was born if the father wanted to take care of it, she can make an informed choice about whether or not they can raise the child.  if the women KNOWS that the father will NOT take responsibility, (this includes him signing away all of his parental rights and liability), and she knows there is no hope of suing him for child support, she is more likely to make the choice to abort, saving herself and society a lot of money and reducing crime.

the only argument ANYONE could possibly have against this system is if they fundamentally do not agree with abortion and believe it to be murder and/or a dangerous procedure, which we've all learned that it is not.

I suspect you did not mean your post to come across exactly as it did. There are women who are single mothers and who both want a child and are able to assume full responsibility for raising the child, financial and otherwise. Your post implies to some degree that most single moms are incapable of doing unless they get some help from the child's father.

[bears]

I suspect you did not mean your post to come across exactly as it did. There are women who are single mothers and who both want a child and are able to assume full responsibility for raising the child, financial and otherwise. Your post implies to some degree that most single moms are incapable of doing unless they get some help from the child's father.

you are correct about single mothers being capable of raising a child 100% on their own. 

However the courts prior legislation would disagree with you and me in that they ALWAYS levy some amount of child support payments on the biological father in cases where the mother sues for said child support. 

so the courts believe that the mother should have help from the biological father.  problem is, even if they do award the child support to the mother, many times it is never paid. 

which is why the discussion needs to happen before the goo becomes a human being.  and if the father does not want to have the goo turn into a baby, he should surrender all his rights in time for her to abort.  if she wants to go ahead, have the baby, and pay for the baby herself, she has every right to.  you can't force a woman to have an abortion.  but she shouldn't be able to force him to pay for a child he doesn't want.

both sexes need to be able to have recourse in an unwanted pregnancy.  not just the woman.

that is fair.  it may sound ugly.  but its the only way that's fair.

[Primemuscle]

you are correct about single mothers being capable of raising a child 100% on their own. 

However the courts prior legislation would disagree with you and me in that they ALWAYS levy some amount of child support payments on the biological father in cases where the mother sues for said child support. 

so the courts believe that the mother should have help from the biological father.  problem is, even if they do award the child support to the mother, many times it is never paid. 

which is why the discussion needs to happen before the goo becomes a human being.  and if the father does not want to have the goo turn into a baby, he should surrender all his rights in time for her to abort.  if she wants to go ahead, have the baby, and pay for the baby herself, she has every right to.  you can't force a woman to have an abortion.  but she shouldn't be able to force him to pay for a child he doesn't want.

both sexes need to be able to have recourse in an unwanted pregnancy.  not just the woman.

that is fair.  it may sound ugly.  but its the only way that's fair.

Alas, trust the ever greedy legal system to fuck things up for the heretofore non litigious. 

[Tapeworm]

Did you become confused?

so we're in agreement then

the woman has no right to make any claim or control over the mans body and vice versa

Correct.  Now we apply the same reasoning to wallets and we're in total agreement.

sure thing

how about this.  If a woman get's pregnant and has a kid then both she and the father are financially responsible for the child

Since neither you, I or anyone other than those two are the parents they are the only ones who are responsible for financially supporting that child

agreed?

Sure thing?  That is not the same reasoning, sir.

Whether or not I pay a woman for the next 18 years is entirely up to her to decide.  I have no say.  Big taxation, no representation.  I'm compelled to open my wallet on the basis of her decision alone.  I don't think that's right.  

And you seem so keen to recognize and remove a woman's financial incentive to become pregnant in the form of welfare, yet you want to keep her incentivized by making her the sole voter in whether a man's wallet is open to her for nearly two decades.  Would abortion stats be the same if a baby didn't come with free money from one source or another?  Come on.

In b4 do the rite thang.  As if every man and woman hasn't had sex with someone they wouldn't want to deal with for 18 long years.  Can I get a witness?

[phreak]

As if every man and woman hasn't had sex with someone they wouldn't want to deal with for 18 long years.  Can I get a witness?

If the glove don't fit, you must not hit!

[Tapeworm]

If the glove don't fit, you must not hit!

Anymore, sure.  But we were all young once.

Eric Stoltz, Killing Zoe: "All men & women 'fit.'"

[phreak]

Anymore, sure.  But we were all young once.

Eric Stoltz, Killing Zoe: "All men & women 'fit.'"

I was awkward and ugly, so no, never had this "problem".

[Tapeworm]

Says the guy with the missus monitoring his account.    You had your share, stud. 

[phreak]

Says the guy with the missus monitoring his account.    You had your share, stud.  

Frankly I did get laid when I was younger, but only because I was an avid cock fondler.


And yes, she knows. We watch bear porn together sometimes.

[bears]

Did you become confused?


Sure thing?  That is not the same reasoning, sir.

Whether or not I pay a woman for the next 18 years is entirely up to her to decide.  I have no say.  Big taxation, no representation.  I'm compelled to open my wallet on the basis of her decision alone.  I don't think that's right.  

And you seem so keen to recognize and remove a woman's financial incentive to become pregnant in the form of welfare, yet you want to keep her incentivized by making her the sole voter in whether a man's wallet is open to her for nearly two decades.  Would abortion stats be the same if a baby didn't come with free money from one source or another?  Come on.

In b4 do the rite thang.  As if every man and woman hasn't had sex with someone they wouldn't want to deal with for 18 long years.  Can I get a witness?

in a perfect world only two people who love each other would have a baby together.  and the ones who just wanted to screw would take the necessary precautions.  and we'd all shit rainbows.  

but that's not our world.  

if you want things to be FAIR, give the man as much recourse as the woman.  either he can assume responsibility or not.  just like she can.  and the woman should just abort if its not the right time.  the question of whether or not the father wants to be there emotionally and financially can be settled before its too late and she can make her own decision KNOWING full well what she will be up against instead of diving into motherhood HOPING that she will have the necessary support.  

[Tapeworm]

Fuckin' A.  A guy who abandons his promises and his family to be a deadbeat is one thing, but a man who says he isn't on board from the word go is another.  There's something off balance in a system that gives both parties responsibility but only one party the decision.  How is this not obvious?

Not to mention the unmentionable but what about fetuses that aren't right?  I wouldn't sign on with the birth of a baby that isn't 100% and I shouldn't have to.  I know that's a shit thing to say but it's the truth.  I couldn't hack it & it's not for me.

Not trying to be all men's-rightsy.  Generally, I regard those guys as needing to take their fucking medicine but the have-a-baby-own-a-man thing is over the line.

For the record, never sired offspring.  More lamenting my reasons for being a sexual paranoid here.

[Straw Man]

Did you become confused?


Sure thing?  That is not the same reasoning, sir.

Whether or not I pay a woman for the next 18 years is entirely up to her to decide.  I have no say.  Big taxation, no representation.  I'm compelled to open my wallet on the basis of her decision alone.  I don't think that's right.  

And you seem so keen to recognize and remove a woman's financial incentive to become pregnant in the form of welfare, yet you want to keep her incentivized by making her the sole voter in whether a man's wallet is open to her for nearly two decades.  Would abortion stats be the same if a baby didn't come with free money from one source or another?  Come on.

In b4 do the rite thang.  As if every man and woman hasn't had sex with someone they wouldn't want to deal with for 18 long years.  Can I get a witness?

This is really really simple (bears pay attention - this is for you too)

the woman has the burden of dealing with all the issues of being pregnant and giving birth.

She has an extra burden and it's happening in her body .....therefore it's solely her choice

If you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to deal with the consequences of your actions.

When the day comes when the woman can extract the fertilized egg and give it to the man to gestate and give birth to then we will all be equal.

Until that day the women gets the choice of whether to get an abortion or give birth and if she choose to give birth then BOTH the mother and the father are responsible for supporting that child.    The courts exist to make sure the father follows through with his obligation so that his obligation to support his child does not fall on the rest of us.

If you don't like this system then you might be better off in a country where women are in fact treated as the mans property. 

Of course, you always retain the option to simply not have sex and then you won't have to deal with the unintended consequences of your actions

[Primemuscle]

Did you become confused?


Sure thing?  That is not the same reasoning, sir.

Whether or not I pay a woman for the next 18 years is entirely up to her to decide.  I have no say.  Big taxation, no representation.  I'm compelled to open my wallet on the basis of her decision alone.  I don't think that's right.  

And you seem so keen to recognize and remove a woman's financial incentive to become pregnant in the form of welfare, yet you want to keep her incentivized by making her the sole voter in whether a man's wallet is open to her for nearly two decades.  Would abortion stats be the same if a baby didn't come with free money from one source or another?  Come on.

In b4 do the rite thang.  As if every man and woman hasn't had sex with someone they wouldn't want to deal with for 18 long years.  Can I get a witness?

Aside from pregnancies resulting from artificial insemination where the sperm donor is unknown, both the man and the woman are responsible for her pregnancy and raising the child for 18 years.

[The Ugly]

Aside from pregnancies resulting from artificial insemination where the sperm donor is unknown, both the man and the woman are responsible for her pregnancy and raising the child for 18 years.

Isn't that the exact issue he's addressing? He knows this. We all know this.

[bears]

This is really really simple (bears pay attention - this is for you too)

the woman has the burden of dealing with all the issues of being pregnant and giving birth.

She has an extra burden and it's happening in her body .....therefore it's solely her choice

If you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to deal with the consequences of your actions.

When the day comes when the woman can extract the fertilized egg and give it to the man to gestate and give birth to then we will all be equal.

Until that day the women gets the choice of whether to get an abortion or give birth and if she choose to give birth then BOTH the mother and the father are responsible for supporting that child.     The courts exist to make sure the father follows through with his obligation so that his obligation to support his child does not fall on the rest of us.

If you don't like this system then you might be better off in a country where women are in fact treated as the mans property.  

Of course, you always retain the option to simply not have sex and then you won't have to deal with the unintended consequences of your actions

and the man has the "burden" of dealing with being financially responsible for the child for 18 years and raising them to be good people for 18 years. because that's what fathers do.  and sorry but raising a child is harder than being pregnant and giving birth.  if you had kids you'd know this.  but you obviously don't.  it's very apparent.  
so the decision should not be solely hers to make.  It should be both of theirs to make.  

and both the mother and father are equally burdened (HATE that word because its the best thing in the world to raise your kids) in raising a child for 18 years.  i'm a father of two boys.  my wife's job is not easier than mine and mine is not easier than hers.  you've been poisoned by the liberal media to think that because the mother carries a child that they're somehow MORE important than the father when you're dead wrong.  they're equally important.

yeah and your comments about dealing with the consequences of your actions are exactly what pro life people say to women who have abortions.  unfortunately people like you have been taught by feminist women that those rules only apply to men.

[Primemuscle]

Isn't that exact issue he's addressing? He knows this. We all know this.

It is the same issue. He has a different perspective about it though. The tone of his post suggests he feels men should not have to help support their children unless it is voluntary. No doubt there are women who trap men into supporting them or even marriage when they become pregnant. That's the risk a guy takes when he has unprotected sex with a woman. Even if a woman says she is on the pill or using other contraceptives, there is no guarantee she won't get pregnant.  

[bears]

This is really really simple (bears pay attention - this is for you too)

the woman has the burden of dealing with all the issues of being pregnant and giving birth.

She has an extra burden and it's happening in her body .....therefore it's solely her choice

If you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to deal with the consequences of your actions.

When the day comes when the woman can extract the fertilized egg and give it to the man to gestate and give birth to then we will all be equal.

Until that day the women gets the choice of whether to get an abortion or give birth and if she choose to give birth then BOTH the mother and the father are responsible for supporting that child.    The courts exist to make sure the father follows through with his obligation so that his obligation to support his child does not fall on the rest of us.

If you don't like this system then you might be better off in a country where women are in fact treated as the mans property.  

Of course, you always retain the option to simply not have sex and then you won't have to deal with the unintended consequences of your actions

I simply do not understand how you don't recognize all of the hypocrisy and failed logic in this post.  your opinions are a product of the influence of feminist liberals who are doing more harm to women than good.

  

[Straw Man]

and the man has the "burden" of dealing with being financially responsible for the child for 18 years and raising them to be good people for 18 years. because that's what fathers do.  and sorry but raising a child is harder than being pregnant and giving birth.  if you had kids you'd know this.  but you obviously don't.  it's very apparent.  
so the decision should not be solely hers to make.  It should be both of theirs to make.  

and both the mother and father are equally burdened (HATE that word because its the best thing in the world to raise your kids) in raising a child for 18 years.  i'm a father of two boys.  my wife's job is not easier than mine and mine is not easier than hers.  you've been poisoned by the liberal media to think that because the mother carries a child that they're somehow MORE important than the father when you're dead wrong.  they're equally important.

yeah and your comments about dealing with the consequences of your actions are exactly what pro life people say to women who have abortions.  unfortunately people like you have been taught by feminist women that those rules only apply to men.

wrong again

They BOTH have the financial burden and they BOTH have the "burden" of raising them to be good people

Post birth the burdens are equal

Prior to birth the woman has ALL of additional burdens of pregnancy and childbirth and post birth health complications