Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
That's a laugh and a half.
If you look at the charter and apply it to this very scenerio, you would see the inqeuality in law.
Yes we agree that a man can not force abortion on a woman, rightly so, he can not force a woman to bear him a child, rightly so.
So why can a woman force a man to be financialy responsible for a child he doesn't want, when she can for all intents and purposes deal with pregenancy on her own. FORCING men to commit to financial slavery is against the law, unless it pertains to the wishes of a woman.
Is it that we hold women in higher regards then you all?
Or is that you feel men should be punished?
Are you gopher or sanctus in disguise?
Why won't you answer any questions? I answer yours, unless I missed one.
Bear, I don't how to explain it to you any more. Abortion can't be criminalized, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do or choose or that it even has to be considered. The right to an abortion has nothing to do with parental responsibility. If you feel you men are financial slaves I suggest bringing up a different argument because this one is dead in the water constitutionally.
Your not answering his question Kreskin, your making up one he isn't asking and answering that one.
It would be like if I asked you how old you were..and you responded with "Abraham lincoln was assasinated, I don't see how you can support assasination"
It doesn't make sense.
If you don't have an answer to his question just concede the point, and move on.
Are you talking about this one: So why can a woman force a man to be financialy responsible for a child he doesn't want, when she can for all intents and purposes deal with pregenancy on her own.
Dealing with it on her own. Does he mean abortion? If so for about the 40th time I will tell you that just because abortion can't be criminalized it doesn't mean it's a viable choice for anyone. It doesn't matter whether or not you act on a negative right because they come without conditions. The woman is not expected to consider it. The entire argument is moot. 100%. Have you read Roe v Wade? The court wasn't pro fetal termination. It determined the fetus had limited rights and the state of Texas overstepped it's legislative bounds. That isn't proposing anyone ever consider it. You can't create laws that penalize children just because abortion laws have been struck down.
Or is it his question about how I don't trust women to bring up kids on their own? Another irrelevant question. His defense is that we should all assume she can afford to raise his child 100% therefore he need not figure out his end past 0%, or else he's a financial slave. LOL.
see, thats what I mean, not a response the question.
She has 100% control of the pregnancy, she can put it up for adoption without notifying him (by claiming its not his, or doesn't know who the father is), she CAN have an abortion (whether or not you think women should be allowed to, they are), She can raise it on her own and never let him know he has a kid (even if he wants to take care of it). Or she can force him to cough up money for the kid, which he can't support.
Awful selfish in that case to not put the needs of the kid first and put it up for adoption. Sure thats hard on the mother and is against her rights..but if the child's rights trump the father's rights, so too must they trump the mother's rights. If they do not trump the mother's rights, they should not trump the father's rights.
Thats what makes it a double standard. Im all for putting the child first..but im not for putting the mother first. Either the child comes first or the Parents (both of them)
Last edited:
Your contradicting yourself.
If the child comes first then how come the mother doesn't HAVE to notify the father? How come its only if she chooses that SHE personally (disregarding the rights of the child and father) wants income, that he even knows?
If the child comes first then how come the mother doesn't HAVE to notify the father? How come its only if she chooses that SHE personally (disregarding the rights of the child and father) wants income, that he even knows?
If anyone finds my lost post l just wrote, just let me know...
Wrong Bear, the Justice System l assume you are refering to the Multi-Billion dollar experiment otherwise known as the Family Court SYSTEM?
Because trust me, and this is not just friends but first hand l was treated rudely with complete discrimination by the Family Court System. My lawyers were treated like garbage as well. In one appearance, the Judge shut down my lawyer before she had a chance to even lay out the argument. This cost me thousands of dollars that was raised through my family and credit. We had to go back and demand some court time, and still to no avail.If you are up against someone who lies and cheats without batting an eye, and they can get others to back them up, it doesn't make any difference at all. After always being treated with respect in my career, it knocked my breathe away with the hostility and rudeness l had to endure in the Family Court System. I even tried to appeal my case and yet, again if you are dealing with a lying cheating unscrupulous individual, and equally greedy and unscrupulous lawyers, you can be tricked, and l was.
So l resent you taking a sweeping shot at women, you have no idea what it is like to take on motherhood and then to find out what a heindonous sytem the family court is all about. Discrimination against women is still alive and kicking, trust me.
--cdnbear
Wrong Bear, the Justice System l assume you are refering to the Multi-Billion dollar experiment otherwise known as the Family Court SYSTEM?
Because trust me, and this is not just friends but first hand l was treated rudely with complete discrimination by the Family Court System. My lawyers were treated like garbage as well. In one appearance, the Judge shut down my lawyer before she had a chance to even lay out the argument. This cost me thousands of dollars that was raised through my family and credit. We had to go back and demand some court time, and still to no avail.If you are up against someone who lies and cheats without batting an eye, and they can get others to back them up, it doesn't make any difference at all. After always being treated with respect in my career, it knocked my breathe away with the hostility and rudeness l had to endure in the Family Court System. I even tried to appeal my case and yet, again if you are dealing with a lying cheating unscrupulous individual, and equally greedy and unscrupulous lawyers, you can be tricked, and l was.
So l resent you taking a sweeping shot at women, you have no idea what it is like to take on motherhood and then to find out what a heindonous sytem the family court is all about. Discrimination against women is still alive and kicking, trust me.
Your opinion only, it is legal, viable and used daily. Not that it is the bulk of my position as you would assert, but rather one of three choices. But it is your main focus, why?
Right or wrong, it is a choice.
LOL, and how true!!!
Still missing the target there Kreskin!!!
LOL, again!!!
No you are going in circles, we are still on track. You fail to see anything in our arguement, except abortion(a tad disturbing if not a bit morbid I might add). Which is not the issue. The imballance is the issue, not your opinion on abortion.
Tam you're a hoot, luv ya Babe.
Can't argue with that.
North, let me start with, I am sorry you had to go through that. It is one of the most ugliest things in life, I'm sure, and I have no way of even relating to it. So all I can offer is my heart felt sorrow.
My position was not to negate the effects of womens treatment in the Familly Court System. As I am well aware there is injustice at every level of the Judicial system, my arguement was not ment to downplay or trivialize the effects or trauma that are innevitable in such cases.
I am merely arguing the premise of law that negates the responsiblity of women during and post pregnancy and places undue and unconstitutional biases upon the male in the equation. In non marrital cases. ie: one night stands, boyfriend/girlfriend, not broken marriages or commonlaw marriages.
Phew, I thought I miffed ya there for a sec.
No, in cases where two people mutually decide to bring forth life, then there is no discussion, HALF of all expenses, and as much support as humanly possible.
As a man i have always lived by the belief that women should not be above any of God's commandments. Allow them to commit murder is really, really immoral and should not be allowed.
[
So why can a woman force a man to be financialy responsible for a child he doesn't want, when she can for all intents and purposes deal with pregenancy on her own. FORCING men to commit to financial slavery is against the law, unless it pertains to the wishes of a woman.
So there will enough money each month to clothe/feed/educate and generally bring up the child, the mother should not have to find a way to do that "alone", as, she "usually" doesn't make enough money,
and the father "usually" does, so they should share the responsibility.
You always talk about taking the money from the man, but same applies to the woman.
So why can a woman force a man to be financialy responsible for a child he doesn't want, when she can for all intents and purposes deal with pregenancy on her own. FORCING men to commit to financial slavery is against the law, unless it pertains to the wishes of a woman.
So there will enough money each month to clothe/feed/educate and generally bring up the child, the mother should not have to find a way to do that "alone", as, she "usually" doesn't make enough money,
and the father "usually" does, so they should share the responsibility.
You always talk about taking the money from the man, but same applies to the woman.
But the man doesn't have an option if he can not afford a child, the woman does though.
Just out of curiosity; what if the woman is atheist, or some religion that doesn't believe in your bible? You would (or have a gov't) impose your religious beliefs on her?
Sure he does, Bear. He can wear a condom or use something else and eliminate the possibility of fatherhood. Same with the woman. The whole thing behind parenthood is mutual agreement; a partnership. Anything else is being either criminal or ridiculously irresponsible.
