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?
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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?