9. You are yet to counter the point where the woman is responsible due to her not looking for a man that is father material, even when she knows the person she's with isn't father material due to it being plainly obvious by first glance, and yet keeps the child expecting such a person to automaticly turn in to a good father material figure. Everyone knows the man she choosed to fall pregnant and keep the child with is not good fater material, she even knew this, regardless she keeps the child anyway, and the tax payers pay money due to her not looking for a man that will financially support and be a father to the family. Instead, she picks a man that will obviously not be able to support the family in any way, then expects the tax payers to pay for her child benefits.
10. You do nothing to counter that the blame for a a child not having a father figure due to the father barely being able to financially support himself, is the mother's fault. "It's the man's fault for the mother willingly keeping the child that can't get proper support due to keeping the child that is from a man that is financially stuck with his own individual life.
11. Your "Both have sex, both are responsible" "counter" if you can call it that. I countered that by explaining why it isn't as simple as that due to society having sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, and that females can have that pleasure with a safety net to dodge parenthood, where as a male does not have that.
12. "Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument."
You failed to answer that question. I wonder why.
13. "You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself."
That, too.
14. "If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality..."
15. "But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples"....Still waiting for those examples.
16. You say "ask people if they're willing to pay for kids that aren't on behalf of males not taking care of the child they never wanted", yet ignore my counter point that ask males the same thing but against the women, "if it was a choice, would you pay your taxes for to go to mothers that had the choice to have a child in such circumstances, knowing and expecting an outside influence (taxpayers) to pay for them and their child due to them not being able to look for a real father type man?
17. I've never said it happens, I have merely asked if you believe it to be "fair" that the male should be offered the same dodge of parenthood a female has. You couldn't eve give that a straight answer when it's a simple question, do you believe it is fair, not do you believe it should happen.
That's only "half", if even half, of my replies to you inwhich you haven't countered properly. After we discuss these seventeen points you avoided, which I doubt you'll even get past those ones, I'll do the rest.
Let's see if you're "gladly" willing to answer these a "second" time.
OK, I will go 'point' by point, and try to be civil (you too, please).
1. Financial abortion: Not allowed because it's blackmail/coercion. It's a threat.
Definition of coercion:
co·erce [koh-urs]
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
Part 1 b. Yes, the burden on the innocent taxpayers and society as a whole. For arguments sake, lets just use simple numbers. Say every year, 10,000,000 babies are born whose fathers 'write them off'. That's outrageous, and unfair to the whole fucking world, and completely unaffordable. Do you realize the cost?
Part 1 c The burden on society from kids who grow up knowing their fathers dumped them, wanted nothing to do with them, and wished them dead. You CAN'T tell me that doesn't affect a person. Numerous studies have proven the ill effects of kids with absent (and in this case) worse than absent parents.
2. I don't understand what you mean, sorry.
3.People paying for ANY child that's not theirs is WRONG, I don't disagree. That's why there are LAWS in place that require parents to support their kids, and if they don't, or can't, they go to jail, or they pay up sooner or later. You can't just waltz into the welfare office and demand money, you have to go through a process to find the parent(s) that are responsible so they can contribute.
4. Yes women have more options for birth control, but that doesn't mean shit. There's condoms. Spermicides, Vasectomies. Or, holy shit, abstaining from sex. That's no excuse, that's a lazy cop-out.
5. I never said anything of the sort. In fact, in an earlier reply to someone else, I said adoption was a form of shirking responsibility.
6. Welfare fraud sickens me. Do I really have to say that? But, hey, if the father was there helping out, maybe she wouldn't be on welfare. Just a thought.
9. What the hell can anyone do about who someone chooses as a mate? I mean, what can I say about that? People fuck who they fuck. My solution to that would actually be for states to provide free abortions. Some do, very few, but some do. It could certainly help. Why don't you lobby for that? You'd get further than whatever it is that you're doing here with these crazy rantings. Then again, not every woman is willing to have an abortion. So, what do you want me to say? I have no answer to that, it's been a problem since the dawn of time. No one has the answer to that.
10. Both parents should do the best they can. I've known people poor as dirt but raised wonderful kids. It's more about attitude sometimes.
11. Sex feels good to entice people to reproduce. If it was awful, then the human race wouldn't have lasted. Simple.
12. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Maybe the employee lied to get the job? maybe the boss is an idiot? I don't get where this comes into play.
13. Like you said, sex is pleasurable. In the heat of the moment, certain tings go by the wayside. AND, a lot of times guys will lie about money, etc, just to get in a girls pants. Happens ALL the time. Men mostly do this, not so much women.
14. Perhaps she doesn't believe in abortion? Hello??!!
15. It's not fair to coerce people. And it's not fair for other people to pay for other people's kids. I'm sure you want a good job one day. Do you want to pay $100 a month or so for some bastard kid? How's that fair?
16. See number 3.
17. The only solution to that problem is to completely outlaw abortion. That would absolutely, positively level the playing field. Then men who want their kids but the woman doesn't, they get their kid. And women can't get out of the responsibility of a kid either. problem solved. Simple. Fair all around.
9. What in the hell can anybody do about it? Take away child benefits. Doing so would mean that the only way for her to have someone to helpher financially support the child would be to find a man willing to supprort the child. Women aren't going to risk pregnancy to men that can choose to be a father or not, so instead would be forced to find a man that actually does want to be a father, due to her not having any gain from having a child with a man that never wanted a child. Like I said before, this would lessen tax payers money going to child benefis, and it would give the child the right to a proper familt with proper parents.
10. Yes, and I've known single parents able to financially support their children on their own. But, raising "wonderful kids" isn't the same as not putting their lives through hell due to being unable to eat. If the man can barely support himself, how is he expected to feedtwo more mouths.
11. Yes, I know that. We altered it's purpose, though. By introducing birth control, we take away the reproduction part, and leave the pleasure part. Evolution made it that way, but humans changed that way. For example, many animals have sex to reproduce, but die in the process. I don't think such things as specific spiders like being eaten by their female mater for pleasure. Point being, sex is for pleasure more than it is reproduction. Evolution made sex feel good so that we are encouraged to reproduce, but humans have taken away the reason for it being to be to reproduce.
12. The point was, the woman in this example is the woman, and the employee is the man. The woman finds a man to have a child with,despite him not being a proper father material man, but falls pregnant to him anyway. The boss employs someone that isn't the proper material man for that line of work. The man then doesn't want to take care of the child, since he wasn't father material. The employee does a bad job, since he isn't the right material man for the job.
The boss knew he hasn't the skills to be an employee, but he employs himanyway. The woman knew he wasn't a good father material man, but she hadhis child anyway. Who is to blame for the employee causing major concequences in the business, the employee that had no skill in the business, or the man that employed him, knowing he had no traits good for the job? Who is to blame, the man that walks away from the child he never wanted or couldn't support, or the woman that knew he couldn't support a child, andknew he would be abad father, but fell pregnant and had the child with him anyway.
13. So, because she's stupid enough to believe a man is rich, even though she has known him for a long time, that's the males fault for her keeping the child? During the early pregnancy, she can have an abortion, or adoption. So even if someone was to lie to her, she still has the ways to escape parenthood. And if she decides to have a child with him just because he's rich, then that's just as terrible for the situation, because even if the man is rich and they have nothing in common, and aren't in love, then they'd be in a dead end relationship anyway that is obviously going to fail.
14. Perhaps she doesn't believe in abortion...Then adoption. And even if she didn't beleive in abortion, that's "her" choice, not the man's. "She" should bare the consequences of "her" beleifs, the man shouldn't suffer because of what "she" beleives. My terrorist exmaple clears that up.
15. Ok then. So we're at an agreement that tax payers shouldn't be paying for other peoples children, in such ways such as child benefits? I agree, but that still doesn't mean the man that never wanted the child should be expected to pay for the child that he didn't want, yet she had anyway, coercing him in to paying, at risk of jail time if he doesn't. It's not fair on any of them, but it is the result of a female's choice to have a child when she knew she'd need some outside income.
16. See #3
17. I completely agree. Like I've said to others, the only way to make it "equal" is to make abortions etc illegal. I've never said that it wouldn't level the playing field, although. Doing such a thing would make everyone equal, but lower their rights, where as if financial abortion was allowed, they both get to have choice.
So the way you said it does bring equality, at the price of free choice, where as mine is about free choice, and brings equality.
ItDuz said: "a. It's black mail? How so? By giving the male the choice to not bare responsibility like a woman gets the choice not to bare it, that's blackmail? Explain how it's blackmail."
I DID explain it. I even gave you the dictionary definition. You STILL don't see that? I'll repeat it, OK?
co·erce [koh-urs]
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
So, to put it into terms we are discussing, the male is coercing the female into having an abortion. He is saying "If you don't abort, then I will be gone and not support the baby" How is that NOT coercion? PLEASE answer that!! Or is it not coercion because you were given a choice? No, silly. Coercion involves choice. That's part of it, it's in the definition. It's 'do this, or else'. THAT'S coercion. OK?
It's no different than someone saying "Sign this contract or I'll kill your mother"....or.... "Choose either the gun or the knife which I will use to kill you." SAME fucking thing. It's using threats of any sort to pressure someone into doing what you want. That's illegal, and no one would ever condone such behavior. That's the main flaw in your plan, and why it would never ever be made law. If that was made law then imagine the flood of other laws that would come afterwards. You fail to see unintended consequences. You're not thinking ahead. You need to find a better plan of attack.
Fact is, abortion is really barely legal. If you honestly think you're going to have luck making abortion essentially a 'must', or a procedure more common than a flu shot, then you've got a lot more thinking to do. People frown upon abortion, for the most part. And you want to convince them that women should be coerced into having abortions? good luck. Do a survey on that, please!!
Why not lobby for NO abortion? That way, it's completely fair. The woman won't have any more power than the man. They'd both be equally responsible.
Or lobby for sex ed and free birth control.
Or start up free or low cost abortion clinics. I'd bet a lot of women who might want an abortion can't afford it. So help them out, and thereby help your fellow man.
A couple questions I had for you that you didn't answer: What if a woman doesn't know she's pregnant (or not until it's too late to abort)? What if a woman hides her pregnancy? What if the woman can't find the father? What's the plan then?
1a. It's black mail? How so? By giving the male the choice to not bare responsibility like a woman gets the choice not to bare it, that's blackmail? Explain how it's blackmail.
The man isn't persuading or forcing her under threats to have a baby or abort a baby, he's saying "he" isn't going to be involved. The female still has full choice over having baby or not, just she'll have to support it without the man, since he didn't want it in the first place. SO the mail is blackmailing her to get finanacial abortion, something she'd have no say on the matter? How is it blackmail for someone to choose "their" role. That's choice. Is it blackmail for a woman to have an abortion? Since financial abortion ensures the same thing, just for men, then black mail and coercion would be the same things a woman does when having an abortion. So it's wrong to persuade a woman to let the man have a choice? She shouldn't have any say at all on the man claiming financial abortion, just like a man has no right to tell a woman she's not allowed an abortion. If the woman is feeling threatened and so forth by a man doing nothing but making a choice that doesn't effect her at all due to her still having her choice to not keep the child, then that's "her" problem. Being intimidated and feeling intimidated are two seperate things. She still has the same rights as she had before, only the male has the same rights. If a male having the same rights as a female is considered a "threat" then equality is a "threat". What about the man? If the woman chooses to have the child despite him not wanting t, he's coerced in to either staying to be a father to the child he never wanted, ruining what "he" had in store for his life because "she" wanted a child, and if he doesn't stick around, he is coerced in to paying for the child he never wants. Yet females would be being coerced just because they don't have full control over herself, the child, and her partner. The man is dominating "his" life, while the woman still gets the choice of being a parent or not.
1b. Sure, and it's also unfair that millions are, to this day, paying for money for children that aren't theirs. Your argument is that it's unfair for taxpayers to have to pay for children that aren't theirs, when they already do, in which not all of the money goes to the child. The actual taxes would lessen with time. What woman will have a child to any random man that obviously doesn't have any father traits if the man can just claim financial abortion? It would then make females think about who to have a child with, lessening from having children with "just anyone" and making it that they have children with someone that will actually financially support them. And since the choices would be "find a man that is willing to be a father and financially support or financially support the child yourself" then women are going to actually have to put in some effort to find a proper father material man instead of expecting a drunk to magicly turn in to great father material just because she got pregnant with him.
2. I'm saying take the money that goes to child benefits, and give them to the people that pay the taxes. Make "their" taxes go to something that gives them something back, financial abortion. If you take the money being given to single mothers for willingly having a child with a man she knew couldn't financially support them, and give it to the citizens choice of parenthood, then that is more fair. This is fair because instead of paying women for falling pregnant with a man that has no father traits, it makes women have to find a man that is willing to be a father to actually be supported, while the money the tax payers pay for child support goes to giving the taxpayers more choice. This is also better for the actual child, because since females can't depend on outside forces financially supporting her, she needs tofind aman that she knows will stick around, giving the child a proper mother and a proper father.
3. "It's wrong, there are laws to say they are required to pay for their own kids"...What about child benefits? The tax payers "are" paying for the children that aren't theirs. So you agree that child benefits should be stopped since the tax payers are paying for kids that aren't theirs, and you agree it's wrong? Yes, they have to find the parent that didn't want the child to begin with to pay money, and if the man doesn't pay for the child he "never wanted", he goes to jail. He is punished because his choice to claim financial abortion was taken from him. Then, the tax payers money get spent on child benefits. So everyone has to pay for the child the "woman" had the choice to bring in to the world, knowing that the man wasn't willing to be a father. Despite this, she gambles either having the man pay for the child only she wanted, or the tax payers paying for the child only she wanted.
4. Yes, it does mean shit. Because as it is, thereason males get blamed for empregnating a woman is "You should of wore a condom". Since the woman has far more was ofbirth control, it should be "You should of been on the pill", etc, instead of blaming the male. So, males have to have sergery as a means of birth contol, and females only have to swollow a pill or put on a femidom? The only way of birth control the male has, is the condom. The rest are sergeries. The female more means of birth control, and not even most of them involve sergery.
5. Yes, and I believe that same person explained to you how her biological mother couldn't support her, so she tried giving her child a better life by putting the child up for adoption, because she knew she couldn't. That's not shirking responsibility, infact, that is actualy being responsible, making sure the child you can't support gets a home to a loving family.
6. The fraud part was only part of it. Yes, it is wrong, and yes, I imagined even you would think so, too. Regardless, she is getting money for the child "she" is responsible for. Like I said, being empregnated is the result of both sides, actually keeping the child is the mother's choice completely. Like I said, why should the man be expected to pay for the child he never wanted? It was her choice to be a paren, not the man's. So if she wanted a father to financially support the child, then she is to blame for picking a man to be the biological father of her child, a man that she knew wouldn't be willing to be the father. Perhaps if she decided to fall pregnant and keep the child to a man that is willing and financially stable enough to have the child.
I clearly explained my argumnets to you, if you don't like it then oh well. I think more people would find my points far more valid than yours.
You also clearly didn't comprehend at least half of what I said, and also put words into my mouth. That's not cool. If you have a question about any statement I made, then ASK me, don't just put words in my mouth. Not cool.
Point number 1, coercion, I put the definition in there so as to not hear any pathetic argument from you about it.
It's coercion because a man is telling a woman "abort the kid, or else". That's textbook coercion/blackmail. TEXTBOOK. Stevie Wonder could see that!
And you're still trying to attack me when I was trying to be polite and give you my points of view. You just DON'T listen, and refuse to think you may be wrong. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm done. Let the other users vote on it, I guarantee you I'll win. By a longshot.
Plus, it's painfully obvious that you know NOTHING about the welfare/family court system, or taxes, or public/social services. Do some research. You sound ignorant when you make statements you have no clue about. That's not an insult, it's just a suggestion, if you're going to try to make such arguments then at least do your homework. And talk to a lawyer, for cryin out loud. PLEASE!! Get over your fear and just go talk to one. then come back and tell us what he said. But I know you won't, too scared.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
9. You are yet to counter the point where the woman is responsible due to her not looking for a man that is father material, even when she knows the person she's with isn't father material due to it being plainly obvious by first glance, and yet keeps the child expecting such a person to automaticly turn in to a good father material figure. Everyone knows the man she choosed to fall pregnant and keep the child with is not good fater material, she even knew this, regardless she keeps the child anyway, and the tax payers pay money due to her not looking for a man that will financially support and be a father to the family. Instead, she picks a man that will obviously not be able to support the family in any way, then expects the tax payers to pay for her child benefits.
10. You do nothing to counter that the blame for a a child not having a father figure due to the father barely being able to financially support himself, is the mother's fault. "It's the man's fault for the mother willingly keeping the child that can't get proper support due to keeping the child that is from a man that is financially stuck with his own individual life.
11. Your "Both have sex, both are responsible" "counter" if you can call it that. I countered that by explaining why it isn't as simple as that due to society having sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, and that females can have that pleasure with a safety net to dodge parenthood, where as a male does not have that.
12. "Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument."
You failed to answer that question. I wonder why.
13. "You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself."
That, too.
14. "If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality..."
15. "But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples"....Still waiting for those examples.
16. You say "ask people if they're willing to pay for kids that aren't on behalf of males not taking care of the child they never wanted", yet ignore my counter point that ask males the same thing but against the women, "if it was a choice, would you pay your taxes for to go to mothers that had the choice to have a child in such circumstances, knowing and expecting an outside influence (taxpayers) to pay for them and their child due to them not being able to look for a real father type man?
17. I've never said it happens, I have merely asked if you believe it to be "fair" that the male should be offered the same dodge of parenthood a female has. You couldn't eve give that a straight answer when it's a simple question, do you believe it is fair, not do you believe it should happen.
That's only "half", if even half, of my replies to you inwhich you haven't countered properly. After we discuss these seventeen points you avoided, which I doubt you'll even get past those ones, I'll do the rest.
Let's see if you're "gladly" willing to answer these a "second" time.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Side note: Number all the counter points up to match the point you're attempting to counter, saves less confusion of mixing one point up with another.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
OK, I will go 'point' by point, and try to be civil (you too, please).
1. Financial abortion: Not allowed because it's blackmail/coercion. It's a threat.
Definition of coercion:
co·erce [koh-urs]
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
Part 1 b. Yes, the burden on the innocent taxpayers and society as a whole. For arguments sake, lets just use simple numbers. Say every year, 10,000,000 babies are born whose fathers 'write them off'. That's outrageous, and unfair to the whole fucking world, and completely unaffordable. Do you realize the cost?
Part 1 c The burden on society from kids who grow up knowing their fathers dumped them, wanted nothing to do with them, and wished them dead. You CAN'T tell me that doesn't affect a person. Numerous studies have proven the ill effects of kids with absent (and in this case) worse than absent parents.
2. I don't understand what you mean, sorry.
3.People paying for ANY child that's not theirs is WRONG, I don't disagree. That's why there are LAWS in place that require parents to support their kids, and if they don't, or can't, they go to jail, or they pay up sooner or later. You can't just waltz into the welfare office and demand money, you have to go through a process to find the parent(s) that are responsible so they can contribute.
4. Yes women have more options for birth control, but that doesn't mean shit. There's condoms. Spermicides, Vasectomies. Or, holy shit, abstaining from sex. That's no excuse, that's a lazy cop-out.
5. I never said anything of the sort. In fact, in an earlier reply to someone else, I said adoption was a form of shirking responsibility.
6. Welfare fraud sickens me. Do I really have to say that? But, hey, if the father was there helping out, maybe she wouldn't be on welfare. Just a thought.
7. See number 3.
8. See number 3.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
9. What the hell can anyone do about who someone chooses as a mate? I mean, what can I say about that? People fuck who they fuck. My solution to that would actually be for states to provide free abortions. Some do, very few, but some do. It could certainly help. Why don't you lobby for that? You'd get further than whatever it is that you're doing here with these crazy rantings. Then again, not every woman is willing to have an abortion. So, what do you want me to say? I have no answer to that, it's been a problem since the dawn of time. No one has the answer to that.
10. Both parents should do the best they can. I've known people poor as dirt but raised wonderful kids. It's more about attitude sometimes.
11. Sex feels good to entice people to reproduce. If it was awful, then the human race wouldn't have lasted. Simple.
12. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Maybe the employee lied to get the job? maybe the boss is an idiot? I don't get where this comes into play.
13. Like you said, sex is pleasurable. In the heat of the moment, certain tings go by the wayside. AND, a lot of times guys will lie about money, etc, just to get in a girls pants. Happens ALL the time. Men mostly do this, not so much women.
14. Perhaps she doesn't believe in abortion? Hello??!!
15. It's not fair to coerce people. And it's not fair for other people to pay for other people's kids. I'm sure you want a good job one day. Do you want to pay $100 a month or so for some bastard kid? How's that fair?
16. See number 3.
17. The only solution to that problem is to completely outlaw abortion. That would absolutely, positively level the playing field. Then men who want their kids but the woman doesn't, they get their kid. And women can't get out of the responsibility of a kid either. problem solved. Simple. Fair all around.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
9. What in the hell can anybody do about it? Take away child benefits. Doing so would mean that the only way for her to have someone to helpher financially support the child would be to find a man willing to supprort the child. Women aren't going to risk pregnancy to men that can choose to be a father or not, so instead would be forced to find a man that actually does want to be a father, due to her not having any gain from having a child with a man that never wanted a child. Like I said before, this would lessen tax payers money going to child benefis, and it would give the child the right to a proper familt with proper parents.
10. Yes, and I've known single parents able to financially support their children on their own. But, raising "wonderful kids" isn't the same as not putting their lives through hell due to being unable to eat. If the man can barely support himself, how is he expected to feedtwo more mouths.
11. Yes, I know that. We altered it's purpose, though. By introducing birth control, we take away the reproduction part, and leave the pleasure part. Evolution made it that way, but humans changed that way. For example, many animals have sex to reproduce, but die in the process. I don't think such things as specific spiders like being eaten by their female mater for pleasure. Point being, sex is for pleasure more than it is reproduction. Evolution made sex feel good so that we are encouraged to reproduce, but humans have taken away the reason for it being to be to reproduce.
12. The point was, the woman in this example is the woman, and the employee is the man. The woman finds a man to have a child with,despite him not being a proper father material man, but falls pregnant to him anyway. The boss employs someone that isn't the proper material man for that line of work. The man then doesn't want to take care of the child, since he wasn't father material. The employee does a bad job, since he isn't the right material man for the job.
The boss knew he hasn't the skills to be an employee, but he employs himanyway. The woman knew he wasn't a good father material man, but she hadhis child anyway. Who is to blame for the employee causing major concequences in the business, the employee that had no skill in the business, or the man that employed him, knowing he had no traits good for the job? Who is to blame, the man that walks away from the child he never wanted or couldn't support, or the woman that knew he couldn't support a child, andknew he would be abad father, but fell pregnant and had the child with him anyway.
13. So, because she's stupid enough to believe a man is rich, even though she has known him for a long time, that's the males fault for her keeping the child? During the early pregnancy, she can have an abortion, or adoption. So even if someone was to lie to her, she still has the ways to escape parenthood. And if she decides to have a child with him just because he's rich, then that's just as terrible for the situation, because even if the man is rich and they have nothing in common, and aren't in love, then they'd be in a dead end relationship anyway that is obviously going to fail.
14. Perhaps she doesn't believe in abortion...Then adoption. And even if she didn't beleive in abortion, that's "her" choice, not the man's. "She" should bare the consequences of "her" beleifs, the man shouldn't suffer because of what "she" beleives. My terrorist exmaple clears that up.
15. Ok then. So we're at an agreement that tax payers shouldn't be paying for other peoples children, in such ways such as child benefits? I agree, but that still doesn't mean the man that never wanted the child should be expected to pay for the child that he didn't want, yet she had anyway, coercing him in to paying, at risk of jail time if he doesn't. It's not fair on any of them, but it is the result of a female's choice to have a child when she knew she'd need some outside income.
16. See #3
17. I completely agree. Like I've said to others, the only way to make it "equal" is to make abortions etc illegal. I've never said that it wouldn't level the playing field, although. Doing such a thing would make everyone equal, but lower their rights, where as if financial abortion was allowed, they both get to have choice.
So the way you said it does bring equality, at the price of free choice, where as mine is about free choice, and brings equality.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
ItDuz said: "a. It's black mail? How so? By giving the male the choice to not bare responsibility like a woman gets the choice not to bare it, that's blackmail? Explain how it's blackmail."
I DID explain it. I even gave you the dictionary definition. You STILL don't see that? I'll repeat it, OK?
co·erce [koh-urs]
verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
So, to put it into terms we are discussing, the male is coercing the female into having an abortion. He is saying "If you don't abort, then I will be gone and not support the baby" How is that NOT coercion? PLEASE answer that!! Or is it not coercion because you were given a choice? No, silly. Coercion involves choice. That's part of it, it's in the definition. It's 'do this, or else'. THAT'S coercion. OK?
It's no different than someone saying "Sign this contract or I'll kill your mother"....or.... "Choose either the gun or the knife which I will use to kill you." SAME fucking thing. It's using threats of any sort to pressure someone into doing what you want. That's illegal, and no one would ever condone such behavior. That's the main flaw in your plan, and why it would never ever be made law. If that was made law then imagine the flood of other laws that would come afterwards. You fail to see unintended consequences. You're not thinking ahead. You need to find a better plan of attack.
Fact is, abortion is really barely legal. If you honestly think you're going to have luck making abortion essentially a 'must', or a procedure more common than a flu shot, then you've got a lot more thinking to do. People frown upon abortion, for the most part. And you want to convince them that women should be coerced into having abortions? good luck. Do a survey on that, please!!
Why not lobby for NO abortion? That way, it's completely fair. The woman won't have any more power than the man. They'd both be equally responsible.
Or lobby for sex ed and free birth control.
Or start up free or low cost abortion clinics. I'd bet a lot of women who might want an abortion can't afford it. So help them out, and thereby help your fellow man.
A couple questions I had for you that you didn't answer: What if a woman doesn't know she's pregnant (or not until it's too late to abort)? What if a woman hides her pregnancy? What if the woman can't find the father? What's the plan then?
1a. It's black mail? How so? By giving the male the choice to not bare responsibility like a woman gets the choice not to bare it, that's blackmail? Explain how it's blackmail.
The man isn't persuading or forcing her under threats to have a baby or abort a baby, he's saying "he" isn't going to be involved. The female still has full choice over having baby or not, just she'll have to support it without the man, since he didn't want it in the first place. SO the mail is blackmailing her to get finanacial abortion, something she'd have no say on the matter? How is it blackmail for someone to choose "their" role. That's choice. Is it blackmail for a woman to have an abortion? Since financial abortion ensures the same thing, just for men, then black mail and coercion would be the same things a woman does when having an abortion. So it's wrong to persuade a woman to let the man have a choice? She shouldn't have any say at all on the man claiming financial abortion, just like a man has no right to tell a woman she's not allowed an abortion. If the woman is feeling threatened and so forth by a man doing nothing but making a choice that doesn't effect her at all due to her still having her choice to not keep the child, then that's "her" problem. Being intimidated and feeling intimidated are two seperate things. She still has the same rights as she had before, only the male has the same rights. If a male having the same rights as a female is considered a "threat" then equality is a "threat". What about the man? If the woman chooses to have the child despite him not wanting t, he's coerced in to either staying to be a father to the child he never wanted, ruining what "he" had in store for his life because "she" wanted a child, and if he doesn't stick around, he is coerced in to paying for the child he never wants. Yet females would be being coerced just because they don't have full control over herself, the child, and her partner. The man is dominating "his" life, while the woman still gets the choice of being a parent or not.
1b. Sure, and it's also unfair that millions are, to this day, paying for money for children that aren't theirs. Your argument is that it's unfair for taxpayers to have to pay for children that aren't theirs, when they already do, in which not all of the money goes to the child. The actual taxes would lessen with time. What woman will have a child to any random man that obviously doesn't have any father traits if the man can just claim financial abortion? It would then make females think about who to have a child with, lessening from having children with "just anyone" and making it that they have children with someone that will actually financially support them. And since the choices would be "find a man that is willing to be a father and financially support or financially support the child yourself" then women are going to actually have to put in some effort to find a proper father material man instead of expecting a drunk to magicly turn in to great father material just because she got pregnant with him.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
2. I'm saying take the money that goes to child benefits, and give them to the people that pay the taxes. Make "their" taxes go to something that gives them something back, financial abortion. If you take the money being given to single mothers for willingly having a child with a man she knew couldn't financially support them, and give it to the citizens choice of parenthood, then that is more fair. This is fair because instead of paying women for falling pregnant with a man that has no father traits, it makes women have to find a man that is willing to be a father to actually be supported, while the money the tax payers pay for child support goes to giving the taxpayers more choice. This is also better for the actual child, because since females can't depend on outside forces financially supporting her, she needs tofind aman that she knows will stick around, giving the child a proper mother and a proper father.
3. "It's wrong, there are laws to say they are required to pay for their own kids"...What about child benefits? The tax payers "are" paying for the children that aren't theirs. So you agree that child benefits should be stopped since the tax payers are paying for kids that aren't theirs, and you agree it's wrong? Yes, they have to find the parent that didn't want the child to begin with to pay money, and if the man doesn't pay for the child he "never wanted", he goes to jail. He is punished because his choice to claim financial abortion was taken from him. Then, the tax payers money get spent on child benefits. So everyone has to pay for the child the "woman" had the choice to bring in to the world, knowing that the man wasn't willing to be a father. Despite this, she gambles either having the man pay for the child only she wanted, or the tax payers paying for the child only she wanted.
4. Yes, it does mean shit. Because as it is, thereason males get blamed for empregnating a woman is "You should of wore a condom". Since the woman has far more was ofbirth control, it should be "You should of been on the pill", etc, instead of blaming the male. So, males have to have sergery as a means of birth contol, and females only have to swollow a pill or put on a femidom? The only way of birth control the male has, is the condom. The rest are sergeries. The female more means of birth control, and not even most of them involve sergery.
5. Yes, and I believe that same person explained to you how her biological mother couldn't support her, so she tried giving her child a better life by putting the child up for adoption, because she knew she couldn't. That's not shirking responsibility, infact, that is actualy being responsible, making sure the child you can't support gets a home to a loving family.
6. The fraud part was only part of it. Yes, it is wrong, and yes, I imagined even you would think so, too. Regardless, she is getting money for the child "she" is responsible for. Like I said, being empregnated is the result of both sides, actually keeping the child is the mother's choice completely. Like I said, why should the man be expected to pay for the child he never wanted? It was her choice to be a paren, not the man's. So if she wanted a father to financially support the child, then she is to blame for picking a man to be the biological father of her child, a man that she knew wouldn't be willing to be the father. Perhaps if she decided to fall pregnant and keep the child to a man that is willing and financially stable enough to have the child.
7. See #3
8. See #3
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I clearly explained my argumnets to you, if you don't like it then oh well. I think more people would find my points far more valid than yours.
You also clearly didn't comprehend at least half of what I said, and also put words into my mouth. That's not cool. If you have a question about any statement I made, then ASK me, don't just put words in my mouth. Not cool.
Point number 1, coercion, I put the definition in there so as to not hear any pathetic argument from you about it.
It's coercion because a man is telling a woman "abort the kid, or else". That's textbook coercion/blackmail. TEXTBOOK. Stevie Wonder could see that!
And you're still trying to attack me when I was trying to be polite and give you my points of view. You just DON'T listen, and refuse to think you may be wrong. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm done. Let the other users vote on it, I guarantee you I'll win. By a longshot.
Plus, it's painfully obvious that you know NOTHING about the welfare/family court system, or taxes, or public/social services. Do some research. You sound ignorant when you make statements you have no clue about. That's not an insult, it's just a suggestion, if you're going to try to make such arguments then at least do your homework. And talk to a lawyer, for cryin out loud. PLEASE!! Get over your fear and just go talk to one. then come back and tell us what he said. But I know you won't, too scared.