ok didn't think so, just wanted to check though since some of what u had said made it seem otherwiseOriginally Posted by XterraChic
Yes
No
Certain Circumstances
Other (explain)
ok didn't think so, just wanted to check though since some of what u had said made it seem otherwise
Capital punishment --> do u believe in it?
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
that is going into a WHOLE other topic
Just seeing what she REALLY believes in, that's all. She said "murder" is never okay. Cap punishment, stopping life support, etc.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
an unborn child being killed b/c of an adult (adult meaning someone old enough to put a penis in a vagina) is not ok..
a grown adult killing/raping or whatever they do to be put in a maxium security prision w/o chance of parole is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO different if they are convicted.. and get the death penalty
But MURDER = MURDER right?What's the difference?
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
thats right.. but a unborn baby has no say in if they get killed.. however if an adult chooses to end another persons life... they should suffer.. dont ya think?
if someone went on a killing rampage right.. and (god forbid) someone you knew was killed.. a family member.. close friend.. whatever.. and you knew that individual was going to sit in jail for the rest of their life.. you would be ok with that? i highly doubt it.. they get to work out.. watch tv.. and always have a meal.. so yea.. think about it..
instead of living a regular life of crime.. they sit in jail.. yea jail isnt fun but still
i mean i have never been faced with any of these situations so until you are faced with it you never know how you will deal.. but these are my opinions as a 24 year old right here right now..
Funny thing is, a lot of those "killing spree" mofos could have been aborted in the same situations that we are talking about. LOL. It's a cycle. A lot of them were "foster home to foster home" kids.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
oh stop.. thats not fair to say..
it's not, not even to them, but more often than not, statistics don't lie
so are you two implying that an adult is who they are b/c of they way they were raised? i'll tell you.. i had an f'ed up childhood.. but i am a (sometimes) saine person.. i have my crazy moments but i would never take that out on anyone.. physically at least..
again.. off topic but i dont think grown adults can use the excuse "i had a bad childhood" forever.. i mean hell.. my dad was a complete asshole.. a horrible man.. grew up w/o him for the majority of my life.. but i dont blame anyone.. i live and learn.. so yes i feel bad for people when they have fucked up things happen to them.. but that does not constitute them killing/hurting people when they grow up.. its not a valid excuse in my book..
some people if abused enough reach their breaking point.. yes i believe that.. but if you are gonna do your research.. do all of it.. not just your side.. b/c im sure there are children who have grown up in normal circumstances with nice homes.. good parents.. never been in trouble.. and one day they snap and go shoot up their school..
no, paul its not a weak foot to stand on. the reason i dont go out and adopt a child right now is because i KNOW i'm not very well qualified to take on the role of a father just yet. thats myself using common sense.that my friend that is a weak foot to stand on.
absolutely, i think one's upbringing speaks volumes about the way they are when they've grown up. of course, that in no way says it's not POSSIBLE for regular ppl who have experienced a wonderful childhood to go psycho. and once again, we're pointing out statistics, there aren't "sides" to a statistic, for every 70% (made up numbers) of kids w/a bad childhood who commit crimes, there is that other side (30%) of those that make something out of their lives. but like baby j was saying, why stack the odds against someone so they have to work at least twice as hard to get to the same place? that's not fair.
if the guy dosen't want her to have the baby and she does then he should be exempt from chlid support. but he should not have visitation rights after birth.
I used to be prolife but after spending some time in Atl traffic I changed my mind.
wow are u kidding me? assholes all over the world would come to ur door to thank u if u got this put through...
maybe.wow are u kidding me? assholes all over the world would come to ur door to thank u if u got this put through...
and bitches that lie about someone being the father and sluts everywhere would throw shit @ my house.
besides if a woman decided to keep the baby she would be able to keep that "asshole" out of her life and the life of the child he didn't want.
^^^she can still keep him out of her life WHILE getting child support?
so if a woman doesn't want to have a child it's ok. but if a man dosen't want it that's NOT ok? bullshit
not that I would ever do that. it's just my opinion.
not going into specifics about what's ok and not ok for either party but just let me ask u this. ultimately, whose body does the baby come out of? don't just answer this rhetorical question, think about the answer.
sure, it's ultimately her decision to have the baby or not. but afterall 50% of that baby's DNA is the man's. shouldn't men have some form of rights?
since women aren't supposed to be in combat M.O.S's in the military does that mean they shouldn't have a say in whether or not we go to war? that would be
think of it like this; if you put a dollar in a soda machine and a soda comes out. who does that soda belong to? you or the machine?
yep, a man has 100% right to know and decide who/what he's sticking his dick into.
quit stealing other ppls lines w/o giving proper reference, that's borderline plagiarism right therethink of it like this; if you put a dollar in a soda machine and a soda comes out. who does that soda belong to? you or the machine?
In a way I say I agree w/ Echo. A lot of women HAVE the kids these days b/c they KNOW if he is working that they can stick him. PLENTY of man pretend to want the woman to beat child support. It's a reality. I bet if there was a law where if the man doesn't want the kid then they could sign away all rights and beat support that a lot more women would think atwice about keeping the kid. LOL. I know that'd never fly... I'd just be happy if support was ALWAYS based on both parent's income, not just the mans. And if SUPPORT was money xferred to a "credit card" and I can log in online and see EXACTLY what is being purchased w/ the money. At about 240 a week for support, I KNOW I am being raped... initial costs of having kid that makes sense. But @ 2 years old I know it doesn't take 960 a week to "support" raising my daughter. Oh well.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
once again that goes to the whole right (and responsibility) of knowing exactly who/what ur stickin. if u have even the slightest doubt they will fuck u over and still choose to hit it, then u are relinquishing ur right to complain about the burdens and unfairness of child support in the future.
You are AGREEING to the sex... not the kid if something goes wrong. No matter how you look at it, a kid is a MISTAKE when it is unplanned. I am a mistake... my dad surely wasn't thiking "hey, let's have a kid," and neither was my mom. And me, well let's just say when I make a mistake I FIX it and learn from it. Had my parents did this I'd never know the difference. There some kool things here on Earth every now and then, but there's some BS too... I really wouldn't have missed out on much. LOL. One could argue that "you know the risks" but that doesn't cut it when you are talking a COMPLETELY new person being brought into the world. I guess I am bitter and biased, but I still think I can offer neutral thoughts on the subject.yep, a man has 100% right to know and decide who/what he's sticking his dick into.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
You can't think for some1 else. ANY1 is capable of ANYTHING, including the gf you have right now. (if u have one)
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
doesn't matter, we're both intelligent enough to know what the sex could very well lead to, protected sex or not. i mean honestly this boils down to the simple shit that hulud and i were arguing about, if u are not able to recognize and fully comprehend what sex can net u, then i guess ur SOL when the girl ends up pregnant.
absolutely, couldn't agree more, which once again brings me back to the fact that u better know damn well (and have thought over and accepted the possiblity of a "mistake") what ur getting into (no pun intended).
that analogy does not work buddythink of it like this; if you put a dollar in a soda machine and a soda comes out. who does that soda belong to? you or the machine?
cause it takes 2 people to make a baby, but you can get a can out of a soda with out a dollar
Val for President
^^^not necessarily, what about JESUS?
To be honest, I actually agree with Echo and Baby J.
Women have 100% right continue or terminate a pregnancy. Men have 0% rights when it comes down to it.
There is going to be a case coming up real soon that will undoubtedly get National attention that addresses this exact issue.
There is a man (can't remember where) that throughly discussed with his GF at the time that he DID NOT want to be a dad. SHE told him that she had a disease that hindered her from getting pregnant AND she was on the pill. We all know what happened. She GOT pregnant. He is now claiming that exact same thing Echo brought up. He is saying that he TOLD her specifically that he did NOT want to be a father now and SHE assured him it was NOT possible according to her doctors. NOW she is suing him for child support of course and he is fighting it. He has never seen the child, doesn't want to see the child, doesn't want to support her, and pretty much said he's being forced to be a father against his will.
Personally, I think the man has a point.
His attorneys brought up the exact points Baby J brought up. If a man expresses IN THE BEGINNING his wishes and the mate is in aggreement, why should it fall upon ONE person to pay child support on a child they never wanted. The laws right now have NO provisions to exempt fathers in situations like this.
Does this open up some ugly doors? Oh yeah. But does it give men a say so equal to women? Absolutely.
The ironic thing is that even with all the uproar about this possibly opening the door to dead beat dads to let them off the hook......it happens every single day anyway. How many times do we not see that anyway? "My baby's daddy aint around...", "His father aint around....", "His father's in jail..."???? Dead beat dads will be dead beat dads regardless of laws IMO. Once you accept paternity of a child, it's a done deal. BUT if you never wanted to be a father and you expressed that and you took precautions against it and then you are FORCED to be a father......I don't think that is anymore fair than anything else.
It's a sticky situation (no pun intended
^ Now I don't wanna marry Paul. Just you and only you. And I won't make you walk behind me either. LOL
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
i dont believe in bedtime stories^^^not necessarily, what about JESUS?
Val for President
His case was thrown out.
SOURCE
Judge tosses out lawsuit from man contesting child support
Associated Press
"A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City ruled Monday that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.
Dubay, 25, of Saginaw Township, had said his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.
He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
But Lawson disagreed and rejected Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"The fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child," Lawson wrote.
The National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, N.Y. - which prepared the suit - nicknamed it "Roe v. Wade for Men" because it involves the issue of male reproductive rights.
Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to Wells.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox later intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.
"If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case," Lawson wrote.
Dubay earlier acknowledged the suit was a long shot.
A message seeking comment was left with his lawyer after work hours Tuesday"
I'm going to research the filing in Pacer. It's nice to read the actual filing.
rofl, i was waiting for something along those linesi dont believe in bedtime stories
regardless though, what i said is a valid pt for MANY ppl
but still even if they believe that, it happened how long ago?rofl, i was waiting for something along those lines
regardless though, what i said is a valid pt for MANY ppl
over 2000 years ago so its not a common occurancehaha
Val for President
^^^now ur just backtracking
Look, I'm a proud Dad. I don't have any issues and will never have any issues with supporting my children. Hell, I try and support my Godchildren and I don't have to do that.
My point is that this issue doesn't even concern me really. There is no way in hell that I could ever or would ever say that my kids aren't mine and I didn't want them, so for me it's a moot point if there are any changes in laws or not.
But I do understand that there are some men out there that clearly get trapped into supporting children they either A: didn't want or B: have no business supporting. It's not fair to give ONLY women the right to terminate a pregnancy. Right now a MAN can NOT MAKE a woman deliver a child SHE doesn't want. She can just march down to the abortion clinic and do as SHE wishes. What about the man? What about if HE wanted the child? Could he legally MAKE her deliver? NOPE. Why is the mother the ONLY one consulted about it? It took TWO to make the baby, didn't it? So why is it that it requires only ONE to terminate it? Furthermore, it took TWO to make it....why does it take ONE to support it????
It would be very good to have mothers be accountable to PAYING fathers IMO.
I know of a woman (using that term loosely) that receives child support on a son she hardly even raises. She's been in jail a bunch of times, been remarried 2x's (once for money literally), and there's been a history of domestic violence (with husband #2) in the home. My friend STILL pays her child support for his son. He's tried thru the courts to gain full custody of his son out that environment.....and guess what?......they would NOT give it to him. Mother been in jail a ton, multiple marriages, unstable home environment, unstable everything.....he is super stable, super reliable, super everything.......and the courts WILL NOT give him custody of his son that he STILL pays child support FOR each and every month.
You wanna talk about unfair......that's Exhibit A.
There are 3 more cases like this in the nation right now. It WILL happen... if men got together and nagged like women do for THEIR rights, it'd happen pretty quick too.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
thats all you got?^^^now ur just backtracking
Val for President
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
(lol)
