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.
You explained my points, and I explained your explanations to be completely flawed. That's how debates work. What, you were expecting not to get acounter to your counter points if there was a counter point available? Do you even know how debates work?
Oh the hilarity. You "think" people will find you have far more valid points than me, and yet I "know" more people find my ppoints far more valid than you. And do you know how I know? Because I showed this to the nice people of the chat room. All of them found your points and methods of debating to be idiotic. And guess what? The majority of them were female.
I didn't "push words in to your mouth" Give me an example of where I done that. And I left many questions for you to answer, and if you can'#t understand that the "?" bit means it's a question, then that's your fault.
Oh? Ok. Give me an example of a man "coercing" a woman on this subject. How is he "coercing" a woman by claiming "his choice"? "If you fall pregnant, I don't want to be the father, andI won't be the father, I'l claim financial abortion". How at all is that coercing someone? < question mark means it' a question to be answered, just so you know.
Erm, attack you? I was being civil. I never even insulted you. I made counter points, and if you're unable to know the difference betweem counter points and attacks, then once again, that's your problem. But, I'm going to do the "logical" thing here and ask for a direct quote in which I "attacked you" and didn't simply counter your point.
So, by me reading your points, then accuratly showing the flaws, that means I'm not listening? No. You think me not saying"Yes, Wigsplitz, you're right Wigsplitz, how could I of not seen you to be the very essence of truth before, Wigsplitz" as me not "listening". If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't be able to correctly make points that go against your points accuratly.
Let the other users vote. -Facepalm- Believe me, the majority agree with me. Everyone on the chat feature said I was right, and that I shouldn't waste time on you. So, your gaurantee has just beem seen to be unreliable, because as a matter of fact, I've won "by a long shot".
-Sigh- I know nothing about these things, yet beat you in adebate about them. Either I do, or you have less knowledge on it than me. You sound ignorant when you say I'm ignorant for saying the things I do, yet you can't make an accurate counter point that can't be countered.
Wellllll, since you actually have a career in law enforcment, it means you're actually more likely and more easily able to get a laywer topay attention, so if you want it done, you have the better chance of makingit happen. And no, not too scared, I just have common sense. Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
I repeated that three times so that you could answer it, because you actually seem to keep avoiding that point.
Well if you doon't try, and don't ask, then no, you probably won't find a lawyer to talk to you. But it's not like you would anyway, because you're scared.
There's plenty of free advice sites with professionals and/or seasoned veterans of the legal system, go there and pose your question. Go ahead, I'd love to see what happens.
Here ya go, took me 2 seconds of googling to find this site...go for it!!
Wow, you're a legend in your own mind, that's for sure!! Yeah, you won!! SUUUURRRRE you did. O, now go to bed little boy. Dream on about your victory.
Youu asked for my opinions and I told you, and you resort to immaturity again. of course I wasn't saying agree with me or else. YOU'RE saying that. YOU think you are right and won't even listen to anyone else. You've got the problem, not me.
Nope. Beating you in a debate hardly makes anyone a "legend". I won, pure and simple. The people in chat even agree that I won. A fine example is that I made so many points in my last reply, yet I know for a fact that you have not made counter claims for most of them in the two replies you made here. That's how I won. I make points you can't answer.
(Read the two replied): Like I said, you will have completely avoided the actual points I made on topic, and just rely on making insults and saying/implying you won, when you couldn't even answer the last reply points.
A free one? If this is free, and actual laywers are admins etc, that definetly do reply back, then I shall so it.
As for this debate. It's over. I have talked it through with the other users familiar with you and this debate, and they are telling me to just leave it, and that there's no point carrying on this with you due to your arrogance, that there is no point carrying this on with "you" specificly due to how even when you are shown to be wrong, you'll still try to say you won. That was from another user, not me. Says much about you, especially coming from a user inwhich last time I talked to, we were having a debate with both sides we dissagreed on. Says much for you, doesn't it.
But, I will get back to you on the freeanswer website thing. But only that. I can't be bothered making counter points (such as me countering all your counter points of my listed 1 to 17 points) and then you avoiding to answer them. And the fact that the last actual counter points were made by me gives me the logical choice to say I that I'm not replying due to you being an idiot, because you won't make any point, against the majority of my points, yet insist on saying you win, where as I have countered your points, and am now leaving the discussion.
I'm actually trying to get my question put through. This is about the sixth time now I've tried to submit it. The website is about asking the lawyers "real" incident in which they need help on, in which to help them identify what the question asker can do in certain legal situations. I've never said Financial support is the law, I said it should become the law. Unless you don't get it, they will only accept questions in which they need advice on what legal action someone can take, or if someone is allowed to do something legally. My point isn't a legal situation, it's a point that I believe it is equality for financial abortion to be the law. The site is focused on giving insight on the laws that are officially laws, not ideas that should be laws. Even if they were to agree or dissagree with me, they still won't acknowledge it due to it not being an official law. You should of tried the site out before suggesting it.
Like I said, the debate is over. You lost. I went to the chat and asked other users who has won, and they say me. So aslong as the majority of people that see this debate know I won, I don't need to prove anything more, mainly due to me already proving everything.
I am going to look around with that ask a lawyer site, though. And if I can get a hold of a layer and debate this with them online, like I said I would if there was a way to do it online in which no payment is needed, then I would.
If you find any more websites in which I can ask a layer these things, then link them for me, and I will look at them.
When or if I get a hold of a lawyer and have a discussion with them on this, I will try screen shot the reply they give, put it somewhere online, and link it here.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You explained my points, and I explained your explanations to be completely flawed. That's how debates work. What, you were expecting not to get acounter to your counter points if there was a counter point available? Do you even know how debates work?
Oh the hilarity. You "think" people will find you have far more valid points than me, and yet I "know" more people find my ppoints far more valid than you. And do you know how I know? Because I showed this to the nice people of the chat room. All of them found your points and methods of debating to be idiotic. And guess what? The majority of them were female.
I didn't "push words in to your mouth" Give me an example of where I done that. And I left many questions for you to answer, and if you can'#t understand that the "?" bit means it's a question, then that's your fault.
Oh? Ok. Give me an example of a man "coercing" a woman on this subject. How is he "coercing" a woman by claiming "his choice"? "If you fall pregnant, I don't want to be the father, andI won't be the father, I'l claim financial abortion". How at all is that coercing someone? < question mark means it' a question to be answered, just so you know.
Erm, attack you? I was being civil. I never even insulted you. I made counter points, and if you're unable to know the difference betweem counter points and attacks, then once again, that's your problem. But, I'm going to do the "logical" thing here and ask for a direct quote in which I "attacked you" and didn't simply counter your point.
So, by me reading your points, then accuratly showing the flaws, that means I'm not listening? No. You think me not saying"Yes, Wigsplitz, you're right Wigsplitz, how could I of not seen you to be the very essence of truth before, Wigsplitz" as me not "listening". If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't be able to correctly make points that go against your points accuratly.
Let the other users vote. -Facepalm- Believe me, the majority agree with me. Everyone on the chat feature said I was right, and that I shouldn't waste time on you. So, your gaurantee has just beem seen to be unreliable, because as a matter of fact, I've won "by a long shot".
-Sigh- I know nothing about these things, yet beat you in adebate about them. Either I do, or you have less knowledge on it than me. You sound ignorant when you say I'm ignorant for saying the things I do, yet you can't make an accurate counter point that can't be countered.
Wellllll, since you actually have a career in law enforcment, it means you're actually more likely and more easily able to get a laywer topay attention, so if you want it done, you have the better chance of makingit happen. And no, not too scared, I just have common sense. Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
Like I said, do you honestly believe a judge or lawyer will spent more than two hours on a debate that has no gain on their behalf? You really think they'll give up their free time to hear anyone for that ammount of time?
I repeated that three times so that you could answer it, because you actually seem to keep avoiding that point.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well if you doon't try, and don't ask, then no, you probably won't find a lawyer to talk to you. But it's not like you would anyway, because you're scared.
There's plenty of free advice sites with professionals and/or seasoned veterans of the legal system, go there and pose your question. Go ahead, I'd love to see what happens.
Here ya go, took me 2 seconds of googling to find this site...go for it!!
http://www.freeadvice.com/law-questions/topic/543/
Wow, you're a legend in your own mind, that's for sure!! Yeah, you won!! SUUUURRRRE you did. O, now go to bed little boy. Dream on about your victory.
Youu asked for my opinions and I told you, and you resort to immaturity again. of course I wasn't saying agree with me or else. YOU'RE saying that. YOU think you are right and won't even listen to anyone else. You've got the problem, not me.
Fuck off, moron.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Nope. Beating you in a debate hardly makes anyone a "legend". I won, pure and simple. The people in chat even agree that I won. A fine example is that I made so many points in my last reply, yet I know for a fact that you have not made counter claims for most of them in the two replies you made here. That's how I won. I make points you can't answer.
(Read the two replied): Like I said, you will have completely avoided the actual points I made on topic, and just rely on making insults and saying/implying you won, when you couldn't even answer the last reply points.
A free one? If this is free, and actual laywers are admins etc, that definetly do reply back, then I shall so it.
As for this debate. It's over. I have talked it through with the other users familiar with you and this debate, and they are telling me to just leave it, and that there's no point carrying on this with you due to your arrogance, that there is no point carrying this on with "you" specificly due to how even when you are shown to be wrong, you'll still try to say you won. That was from another user, not me. Says much about you, especially coming from a user inwhich last time I talked to, we were having a debate with both sides we dissagreed on. Says much for you, doesn't it.
But, I will get back to you on the freeanswer website thing. But only that. I can't be bothered making counter points (such as me countering all your counter points of my listed 1 to 17 points) and then you avoiding to answer them. And the fact that the last actual counter points were made by me gives me the logical choice to say I that I'm not replying due to you being an idiot, because you won't make any point, against the majority of my points, yet insist on saying you win, where as I have countered your points, and am now leaving the discussion.
I'm actually trying to get my question put through. This is about the sixth time now I've tried to submit it. The website is about asking the lawyers "real" incident in which they need help on, in which to help them identify what the question asker can do in certain legal situations. I've never said Financial support is the law, I said it should become the law. Unless you don't get it, they will only accept questions in which they need advice on what legal action someone can take, or if someone is allowed to do something legally. My point isn't a legal situation, it's a point that I believe it is equality for financial abortion to be the law. The site is focused on giving insight on the laws that are officially laws, not ideas that should be laws. Even if they were to agree or dissagree with me, they still won't acknowledge it due to it not being an official law. You should of tried the site out before suggesting it.
Like I said, the debate is over. You lost. I went to the chat and asked other users who has won, and they say me. So aslong as the majority of people that see this debate know I won, I don't need to prove anything more, mainly due to me already proving everything.
I am going to look around with that ask a lawyer site, though. And if I can get a hold of a layer and debate this with them online, like I said I would if there was a way to do it online in which no payment is needed, then I would.
If you find any more websites in which I can ask a layer these things, then link them for me, and I will look at them.
When or if I get a hold of a lawyer and have a discussion with them on this, I will try screen shot the reply they give, put it somewhere online, and link it here.
Goodbye.