Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 17:04:20 GMT -5
Why would it make you suspicious? The natural result of sex is pregnancy. I know plenty of women that did not want more children and had surprise pregnancies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 17:49:13 GMT -5
Richard has repeatedly expressed contempt for Feminists and accused women of getting pregnant on purpose as "gotcha" pregnancies amongst other things. He has proven his ingrained prejudice against women repeatedly.
And in compliance with the COC I have not called him a misogynist, I have categorized many of his statements as misogyny.
Same difference when they are false categorizations. Contempt for feminists is not even remotely the same as " dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". I like women who aren't feminists. I like women who want equal rights for everyone (I'd even join in rallies or protests for equal rights if I was available for it). And, as I pointed out (and offered links to stories about) women HAVE gotten pregnant as "gotcha" traps.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 17:54:47 GMT -5
As long as we also remove the tax payers responsibility as well. Not sure if we could... BUT... if it was also made law that the child would be removed from the mother (with parental rights IMMEDIATELY terminated and the child IMMEDIATELY put up for adoption... no 10 year drawn out fiasco's) if she couldn't afford to raise it, it's likely that most of the women that would have tried a "gotcha" wouldn't even try it... so less babies created to deal with anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 17:57:28 GMT -5
Or, we take away the incentive for women to try and cement a relationship or trap a man with a kid. We push for being able to abdicate our parental rights, so there's nothing that a woman can gain by having the gotcha pregnancy. Using that as a reason for it implies that gotcha pregnancies are a common practice. That is blatantly untrue and displays a contempt and prejudice against women. No it doesn't. All it "implies" is that it DOES happen. And it adds another layer of reason as to why men should be given the same right to "opt out" as women have.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:00:26 GMT -5
As long as we also remove the tax payers responsibility as well. Not sure if we could... BUT... if it was also made law that the child would be removed from the mother (with parental rights IMMEDIATELY terminated and the child IMMEDIATELY put up for adoption... no 10 year drawn out fiasco's) if she couldn't afford to raise it, it's likely that most of the women that would have tried a "gotcha" wouldn't even try it... so less babies created to deal with anyway. You want a father to be able to take away both parents from a child. You are certainly willing to give up a great many values in the name of equality.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:04:44 GMT -5
Not sure if we could... BUT... if it was also made law that the child would be removed from the mother (with parental rights IMMEDIATELY terminated and the child IMMEDIATELY put up for adoption... no 10 year drawn out fiasco's) if she couldn't afford to raise it, it's likely that most of the women that would have tried a "gotcha" wouldn't even try it... so less babies created to deal with anyway. You want a father to be able to take away both parents from a child. You are certainly willing to give up a great many values in the name of equality. No I don't. Where the hell did you get that idea?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:10:24 GMT -5
You want a father to be able to take away both parents from a child. You are certainly willing to give up a great many values in the name of equality. No I don't. Where the hell did you get that idea? Did I misunderstand and you want that no matter what either parent wants? If so sorry, to mischaracterize your view. I don't like that view any better though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:29:52 GMT -5
No I don't. Where the hell did you get that idea? Did I misunderstand and you want that no matter what either parent wants? If so sorry, to mischaracterize your view. I don't like that view any better though. Yes. You misunderstood. (not surprising though since you have tried your hardest to misunderstand this whole thread) I don't WANT any rights taken away from anyone. I want equal rights GIVEN to the father that the mother has. You know... equality. I also want "what's best for the child" if, indeed, the pregnancy continues (the mother chooses to NOT abort) to the birth of a child. If the mother cannot take care of the child, then arrange to have the child placed somewhere that it can be taken care of. If the mother wants to raise the child on her own, she should have that right. But her personal choice should not be used to get money from taxpayers in the form of financial assistance to raise that child.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:35:58 GMT -5
Did I misunderstand and you want that no matter what either parent wants? If so sorry, to mischaracterize your view. I don't like that view any better though. Yes. You misunderstood. (not surprising though since you have tried your hardest to misunderstand this whole thread) I don't WANT any rights taken away from anyone. I want equal rights GIVEN to the father that the mother has. You know... equality. I also want "what's best for the child" if, indeed, the pregnancy continues (the mother chooses to NOT abort) to the birth of a child. If the mother cannot take care of the child, then arrange to have the child placed somewhere that it can be taken care of. If the mother wants to raise the child on her own, she should have that right. But her personal choice should not be used to get money from taxpayers in the form of financial assistance to raise that child. I did misunderstand you on that. For the most part though, I think I do understand you. I just think your ideas on equality are terrible. I think you give up lots of values to get the one. I think you sacrificed religious freedom in the bakery case. I think you sacrifice the rights of the child on this issue. I know you think you do not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:52:57 GMT -5
Yes. You misunderstood. (not surprising though since you have tried your hardest to misunderstand this whole thread) I don't WANT any rights taken away from anyone. I want equal rights GIVEN to the father that the mother has. You know... equality. I also want "what's best for the child" if, indeed, the pregnancy continues (the mother chooses to NOT abort) to the birth of a child. If the mother cannot take care of the child, then arrange to have the child placed somewhere that it can be taken care of. If the mother wants to raise the child on her own, she should have that right. But her personal choice should not be used to get money from taxpayers in the form of financial assistance to raise that child. I did misunderstand you on that. For the most part though, I think I do understand you. I just think your ideas on equality are terrible. I think you give up lots of values to get the one. I think you sacrificed religious freedom in the bakery case. I think you sacrifice the rights of the child on this issue. I know you think you do not. Then you actually don't understand. Because there is nothing given up to get the one that men should have. Women still have the right to choose to keep the pregnancy or abort. Women still have the right to choose to keep the baby (if it makes it to birth) or adopt it out. What they wouldn't have is the right to force their choices to impact others. ETA: and you also don't understand the religious freedom in the bakery issue either. There is no right to impose your religion on anyone else, because if a believer is allowed to impose his/her beliefs on another, then that other has lost their freedom of religion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 18:57:51 GMT -5
I did misunderstand you on that. For the most part though, I think I do understand you. I just think your ideas on equality are terrible. I think you give up lots of values to get the one. I think you sacrificed religious freedom in the bakery case. I think you sacrifice the rights of the child on this issue. I know you think you do not. Then you actually don't understand. Because there is nothing given up to get the one that men should have. Women still have the right to choose to keep the pregnancy or abort. Women still have the right to choose to keep the baby (if it makes it to birth) or adopt it out. What they wouldn't have is the right to force their choices to impact others. I do not think it has anything to do with them man's right or the woman's right. I think the child has a right to the support of both parents. What is given up is money that supports the child. You can say I do not understand, but I do, I just think you are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:06:50 GMT -5
Then you actually don't understand. Because there is nothing given up to get the one that men should have. Women still have the right to choose to keep the pregnancy or abort. Women still have the right to choose to keep the baby (if it makes it to birth) or adopt it out. What they wouldn't have is the right to force their choices to impact others. I do not think it has anything to do with them man's right or the woman's right. I think the child has a right to the support of both parents. What is given up is money that supports the child. You can say I do not understand, but I do, I just think you are wrong. The child has no such right. You may think that it does, but it doesn't. (I thought we already went through this... rights vs. preferences, moral obligations, and governmentally imposed responsibilities)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:12:53 GMT -5
I do not think it has anything to do with them man's right or the woman's right. I think the child has a right to the support of both parents. What is given up is money that supports the child. You can say I do not understand, but I do, I just think you are wrong. The child has no such right. You may think that it does, but it doesn't. (I thought we already went through this... rights vs. preferences, moral obligations, and governmentally imposed responsibilities) I think a child has a right to support from both its parents. I am telling you, I disagree, not misunderstand. You obligations sound like rights from a different perspective, one has an obligation, the other sees that obligation as his right. Preferences is just some concept you throw in to cover something you otherwise couldn't. Governmentally imposed responsibilities you lose on. There are laws that make dads responsible. I think the last is not relevant to right or wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:32:54 GMT -5
What? Murder, bankruptcy, adoption, asylum, and all kinds of things are relatively rare. We still have laws in place to deal with them when they happen. Putting a law in place to allow men to abdicate parental rights and responsibilities during pregnancy would be no different. Most of the time it wouldn't come into play at all. It would allow men in certain situations, like finding out a spouse cheated on them, she was sabotaging the condoms, or whatever to have a legal way out. No different from any other law that only applies in certain situations. What I find really odd is that you haven't mentioned a mans inability to provide for a child properly as a reason for them to have the right to abdicate parental responsibility. So the child can have a better life. That is the reason usually given for women to give a child up for adoption. You jump right to "it's so big bad evil women can't trap those poor innocent, defenseless men". You guys really need to get control of who you are having sex with.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:34:23 GMT -5
The child has no such right. You may think that it does, but it doesn't. (I thought we already went through this... rights vs. preferences, moral obligations, and governmentally imposed responsibilities) I think a child has a right to support from both its parents. I am telling you, I disagree, not misunderstand. You obligations sound like rights from a different perspective, one has an obligation, the other sees that obligation as his right. Preferences is just some concept you throw in to cover something you otherwise couldn't. Governmentally imposed responsibilities you lose on. There are laws that make dads responsible. I think the last is not relevant to right or wrong. You just proved that you misunderstand right there in that post. "Preferences" is not something that I "throw in to cover something {I} otherwise couldn't". Preferences exist and are a valid and very real thing... whether you believe them to be or not. And I agree that there are laws that make dads responsible. They are unfair, unjust, and in violation of the 14th amendment (courtesy of the last sentence of the first "section" of it: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If women have the legal right to opt out {which they do and I support that right}, then men should also be legally allowed to, otherwise there is no equality).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:38:16 GMT -5
I think a child has a right to support from both its parents. I am telling you, I disagree, not misunderstand. You obligations sound like rights from a different perspective, one has an obligation, the other sees that obligation as his right. Preferences is just some concept you throw in to cover something you otherwise couldn't. Governmentally imposed responsibilities you lose on. There are laws that make dads responsible. I think the last is not relevant to right or wrong. You just proved that you misunderstand right there in that post. "Preferences" is not something that I "throw in to cover something otherwise couldn't". Preferences exist and are a valid and very real thing... whether you believe them to be or not.
And I agree that there are laws that make dads responsible. They are unfair, unjust, and in violation of the 14th amendment (courtesy of the last sentence of the first "section" of it: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If women have the legal right to opt out {which they do and I support that right}, then men should also be legally allowed to, otherwise there is no equality).can you link something that defines "preferences" in the context of a newborn getting cared for. I believe that is the context where preference first arose.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 20:34:48 GMT -5
Both sexes have the ability to put a kid up for adoption. If a man is the sole caretaker of a child and can't take care of it, he can put it up for adoption just like a woman in the same situation could. I'm not mentioning it because that already exists. I thought the problem was having to pay support if the mother kept the child and raised it. Other than not being able to afford it, why would a man not support his child?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 20:39:27 GMT -5
You just proved that you misunderstand right there in that post. "Preferences" is not something that I "throw in to cover something {I} otherwise couldn't". Preferences exist and are a valid and very real thing... whether you believe them to be or not. And I agree that there are laws that make dads responsible. They are unfair, unjust, and in violation of the 14th amendment (courtesy of the last sentence of the first "section" of it: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If women have the legal right to opt out {which they do and I support that right}, then men should also be legally allowed to, otherwise there is no equality). can you link something that defines "preferences" in the context of a newborn getting cared for. I believe that is the context where preference first arose. No. Because that's only actually codified in "governmentally imposed responsibilities". The laws that say a man must be held responsible or he will be punished under the law. I can provide links for them if you'd like though. Preferences was only brought in because it's one of the four states/reasons of "why we do what we do".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 20:57:09 GMT -5
Both sexes have the ability to put a kid up for adoption. If a man is the sole caretaker of a child and can't take care of it, he can put it up for adoption just like a woman in the same situation could. I'm not mentioning it because that already exists. I thought the problem was having to pay support if the mother kept the child and raised it. Other than not being able to afford it, why would a man not support his child?I don't suppose "because he didn't want to be a parent in the first place" or "because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet" ever crossed your mind?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 21:01:48 GMT -5
I thought the problem was having to pay support if the mother kept the child and raised it. Other than not being able to afford it, why would a man not support his child?I don't suppose "because he didn't want to be a parent in the first place" or "because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet" ever crossed your mind? A guy who doesn't want to support his child because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet is a loser.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 21:12:55 GMT -5
I don't suppose "because he didn't want to be a parent in the first place" or "because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet" ever crossed your mind? A guy who doesn't want to support his child because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet is a loser. Would you say the same about a gal?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 11, 2015 21:19:57 GMT -5
I don't suppose "because he didn't want to be a parent in the first place" or "because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet" ever crossed your mind? A guy who doesn't want to support his child because he wasn't ready to be a parent yet is a loser. if being a loser was a crime, all of us would serve time occasionally.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 12, 2015 8:15:35 GMT -5
Or, we take away the incentive for women to try and cement a relationship or trap a man with a kid. We push for being able to abdicate our parental rights, so there's nothing that a woman can gain by having the gotcha pregnancy. Using that as a reason for it implies that gotcha pregnancies are a common practice. That is blatantly untrue and displays a contempt and prejudice against women. Later - this is the second time in this thread you taken the words of someone who doesn't agree with you and twisted it into a label that quite simply doesn't fit. So, 1. So exactly how you get from the quote you quoted above, to the realization that the poster was implying gotcha pregnancies were common? 2. Tell me exactly how such an implication (if one existed, which sorry - I don't see) translates into contempt and prejudice against women? You may not have come from the same socioeconomic background that I did, but the "I was afraid I was gonna loose him" pregnancy is far more common that you want to acknowledge. I personally know of three of them. In fact, a well know trade publication has reported on this a few times. Below an excerpt: "Some of the women admitted that they had not used birth control with guys who had appealing characteristics. To determine whether such behavior is widespread, Spohn surveyed nearly 400 women at two community colleges. More than a third of women said they had risked pregnancy in the past with men who had attractive qualities—such as commitment to the relationship, good financial prospects or the desire for a family—but hadn't discussed the possibility of pregnancy with their partner."
www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200508/not-so-accidental-pregnanciesNow I'm not suggesting that 1/3 of unintended pregnancies are gotcha ones, but based on the survey above if more than 1/3 admit to thinking about it then I'm gonna guess it's a lot more than 2-3%. Of course, what woman would ever admit openly to trying to do that? Right - very few.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 8:17:43 GMT -5
Captain are you asking as a mod or a poster?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 12, 2015 10:05:39 GMT -5
Both sexes have the ability to put a kid up for adoption. If a man is the sole caretaker of a child and can't take care of it, he can put it up for adoption just like a woman in the same situation could. I'm not mentioning it because that already exists. I thought the problem was having to pay support if the mother kept the child and raised it. Other than not being able to afford it, why would a man not support his child? because he had no interest in having a child, and has other plans? in other words, the same reason many women abort.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 10:18:03 GMT -5
I thought the problem was having to pay support if the mother kept the child and raised it. Other than not being able to afford it, why would a man not support his child? because he had no interest in having a child, and has other plans? in other words, the same reason many women abort. That brings up the problem hickle has mentioned, his obligation to the child. I don't really know the answer. The situation is not comparable to abortion, in that case the woman's body being used as an incubator is involved. That is not the case with a man. I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 10:20:24 GMT -5
Gotta say, between all these women having abortions cause they feel like it and all these other women having babies to trap men, it's amazing we're allowed to exist.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 12, 2015 11:30:21 GMT -5
Captain are you asking as a mod or a poster? As a poster. Actually, I try very hard to not have to openly moderate on the threads. I believe when people start throwing labels around or make statements like that they are more interested in shutting down a discussion than having an open discussion. That's just my take on it and I hope it's not your intent. It does again bring up something I've noticed in debates - that is - throwing labels at someone who expresses an opinion with which you don't agree. We see it all the time in threads on contentious topics. Which is why we're constantly going on about addressing the issue, not the poster.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 11:37:46 GMT -5
This issue is the prejudice against women and that is what I am addressing. This thread started with the express purpose of accusing Feminists of playing the victim and quickly stocked up on a couple of men playing the victim for what Feminists do to them and then what women in general do with the gotcha pregnancies. There was absolutely no reason to accuse women of anything if you want to talk about men having the right to abdicate their parental responsibility. You not only see no problem with that, you support it and take pride in the fact that you're not one of those hypocritical women that won't admit how bad women are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 2:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:00:38 GMT -5
How is a man abdicating his parental rights prejudiced against women? They still have all the options they currently do, abortion, adoption, raising the child.You don't want them to be comparable, that doesn't mean they aren't. In the case of a man being forced to support a child he doesn't want the government is forcing him to do something against his will. It would be very similar to outlawing abortion which would force women to be incubators against their will. Right now, if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want children she has multiple options to avoid it. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby but the man doesn't want children, tough shit. He has no say whatsoever, and the government will force him to monetarily support the kid. Imagine the situation slightly differently and tell me if it's fair. A woman gets pregnant, she doesn't want children, but the father does. She's forced to carry the baby to term, give it to the father, then hand over a chunk of her paycheck to the guy for the next two decades. Is that fair to the woman? If not, why is it fair to treat a man the same way? That argument ignores basic biological facts.
|
|