Dave Chappell said "if women can kill their babies, then men can abandon them"

a reply to: The2Billies

Maybe we should just temporarily sterilize all the little XXs and XYs and refuse to reverse it till they can show the maturity, competance and intelligence to not screw around with just anyone willing to play.
Make life a little simpler.
WTH would make one night stand Joe think he should have a say about what one night stand Jane does with her body!
Here's an idea... shotgun wedding time!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: The2Billies

Maybe we should just temporarily sterilize all the little XXs and XYs and refuse to reverse it till they can show the maturity, competance and intelligence to not screw around with just anyone willing to play.
Make life a little simpler.
WTH would make one night stand Joe think he should have a say about what one night stand Jane does with her body!
Here's an idea... shotgun wedding time!!

LOL good one!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If the mother can't afford to feed, house, clothe and provide medical care to the child, society has to. Why should society have to pay for a dead beat dad's responsibility?

And the mother that can't afford all those things isn't dead beat because...?

She's Catholic?

Still her choice and only her choice
The Catholic church does not force her to give birth
It is still her choice

The Catholic church won't keep her locked up until birth
The Catholic church won't force her to do anything
The choice is still her's

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Like men haven't been abandoning their kids and families since forever.

No not all men but they sure don't need an excuse like this to do it.

And the kids they abandon, those mothers decided not to get abortions.

When you assault the nuclear family and the idea it takes 2 parents to raise a child and say it only takes one don't be surprised when this happens.

One of the points I have been trying to make!
Not in a conventional, or straightforward way
But in a way that feminist progressives can hopefully grasp.

a reply to: The2Billies

But, it's not always the women who is wanting the support. Many just want the guy go away, and the contribution of many men is so small, it's not worth the hassle of the guy connected to her.
It's only when she finds herself needing govt assistance that she ends up having to go after him for child support

And, let's think about this idea that unless the women can afford to support the child alone, then she should abort it.. which is basically what you are saying. How many families are needing two paychecks coming in to support the one household they are sharing the responsibility in?
My husband and me had to. Worked opposite shifts to avoid the high cost of childcare which would have negated any benefit of me working. Okay, you break that household apart, now there is two households to support, the free daycare option is probably gone, and one of them is gonna be filling in with all the contributions within the home... ie.. trash duties, laundry, various childcare duties, cooking, and on and on which were shared between them. And that person will have to also remain working, actually probably working more hours because the combined earnings of the two probably wont be able to absorb the cost if two households. This is why I say the child support being paid in many cases isnt a fair award to begin with, the one who gets custody gets all the responsibility of all the homemaking and childcare, and unless the man is earning above advantage earnings, theres no way he could fulfill the main part of his responsibility in the arrangement.

But, let's say we all took this advice, discovered we are pregnant, and the first question we asked was.... could I raise this child to adulthood alone, do I have the earning potential to be able to fund such a venture...
My only question would be who would be around in the next generation to serve the kids of those few who could actually swing such a thing?

a reply to: The2Billies

That doesn't address the question to which my post was a reply.

There are many reason why a women would choose NOT to abort, including religious reasons. One reason why a woman would choose to give birth to a child she can't afford is her religious beliefs.

a reply to: dawnstar

But you know, when society says males have no say and no choice in parenthood.

But females have all the say and all the choice.

It does take two to get pregnant

But only one is allowed to make the choice, I'm sorry that makes her completely responsible.

If she can't afford it, then society is on the hook.

It is not right that the male can not choose to abort responsibility while the female can.

I'm sorry, saying women need a man to take care of their choice and to take care of them, is so anti-feminist.

Also, when the law gives one person a choice to end responsibility for an action, but does not allow another person to end responsibility for their identical action. That is unjust and unfair.

I am looking at this from an a-moral or "new" morality point of view; one where religious considerations are old fashioned and practically illegal; one where "traditional american values" are rejected and no longer play a part; as we have in the US today.

This is also, from a gender neutral perspective, why does one gender get to choose to abdicate responsibility while the other is legally bound to pay for the identical responsibility.

Why do we assume that women are capable of independent decision making and taking charge of their own lives, while at the same time demanding a male take care of the female's lifestyle choice financially if she makes the choice through her actions?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: The2Billies

That doesn't address the question to which my post was a reply.

There are many reason why a women would choose NOT to abort, including religious reasons. One reason why a woman would choose to give birth to a child she can't afford is her religious beliefs.

It is still their choice and only their choice, their body, their decision. No one else's business, makes it no one else's responsibility.

a reply to: The2Billies

when society says males have no say and no choice in parenthood.

That's not true. Men, legally, just don't get the final say when there is no agreement between the two.

But only one is allowed to make the choice, I'm sorry that makes her completely responsible.

Not choosing to abort doesn't excuse a father who abandons this children. Not every woman chooses abortion, and not every woman has access to abortion, no matter how many times you repeat the mantra.

I'm sorry, saying women need a man to take care of their choice and to take care of them, is so anti-feminist.

This about the child and the child's needs, remember, the one you want to allow a man to abandon because its mom did abort it?

Personal question...you don't have answer if you don't want....

Is your husband or son(s) paying child support to a child they don't have custody of? Is that why you're so bitter toward women who choose not to have abortions?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's not true. Men, legally, just don't get the final say when there is no agreement between the two.

What say do they have?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

There is no "good argument" for a man to abandon their child or children.

If a woman wants to keep the baby, but the man does not and wants an abortion why should the man be held responsible? Same thing if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't does the man have any rights in that case? It seems in both cases the man must do what the woman wants and is still held accountable against his wishes.

a reply to: The2Billies

But I am also pointing out that most men wouldn't be able to either, you are just looking at this from a financial angle and overlooking everything else that is involved in parenting that has to be done by someone, even during those times when dad is at work. How much would it cost to replace the partner that was sharing all those responsibilities with him? Or is he planning on just going out and finding another sucker to fill in, get pregnant, and double his problems?
So, no, it's not sexist.

I dont remember ever conversing with you on these types of topics so maybe I should explain something to you. I center my attention on those women whose pregnancies have developed complications that have affected their abilities badly, are endangering their health in some way, posing a risk to their life. I have presented problems I have experienced in my pregnancy, as well as problems i know have occurred in others. While they may fall short of posing imminent death to the women, they may put a women in a position that will make it impossible to function and fulfill the obligations and responsibilities she has accepted Iife.
There is no law that forces the father of her child to do a danged thing to help her. He doesnt have to hire a nanny to come in and help her with the kids, he doesn't have to pay her bills if she finds herself unable to keep continue in her job, and he doesnt have to help with the medical bills if the problem results in her being hospitalized. It seems that the actual part of pregnancy at least leagally, is hers to cope with along with all the complications that might come with it.
But, you seem to think that because she is given an option to end the pregnancy, a decision that she made not so much because she didnt want to be a parent but rather because she didnt want to be sick, she didnt want the chaos it was producing for her and her family.

You believe that should give you the right to get out of child support because she was given that choice??
It is her body! It is her that is experiencing the morning sickness, the weight gain, the dangerous high blood pressure, the risk of failing organs, blindness, death...
among a myriad of other issues that can and do pop up in a pregnancy! Things that she alone will have to deal with because one night stand joe is gonna be busy in the bar or club looking for his next stand.
Heck no, men shouldn't have the final say when it comes to abortion.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You'd be amazed at the effect the words " Well, it's not my kid" has when said right after his girlfriend tells them they are pregnant..

a reply to: dawnstar

I get all that and don't think it's trivial whatsoever. The issue imo is the disparity. It takes two people to make a baby. TWO. Context is important. Situation is important. I get that it's the woman that has the child. It isn't hers though. It is theirs. The both of them. The two it took to tango. And if for whatever reason, moral or ethical or.. doesn't even matter.. if one of them isn't interested in the child.. well that is kind of that. The man, or the woman. I don't completely know how I feel on the subject overall but what makes me cringe is that one party is more favored than the other. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see life aborted, potential lost. But acting like men are dicks (not implying you are) if they don't want to pay child support or have anything to do with a kid they didn't expect is totally #ed up. It's been said already in this thread. Woman have all the power in these situations.

When it comes down to it.. Ideally I think it is between the people involved. I don't think a woman should be able to just keep the baby then demand things like child support. I also don't think the man should be able to say, I want nothing to do with that... Well.. I do.. and I don't. Context.. situation. Basically I don't think there is any one right answer or solution. It would be great if there was but there isn't. Because.. people.

a reply to: dawnstar

I am not saying abortion (before the 16th) week should be illegal.

The point I am trying to get across is that our society has "evolved" into a new morality. One that eschews Judeo-Christian religion, and rejects all traditional values as oppressive and sometimes are actually deemed as immoral in and of themselves. There is a price to pay for that kind of thinking.

When society rejects men because they are "toxic" or "oppressive". When society tells men they are not needed as a parent and 99% of the time is rejected by the courts as not necessary except as a bank account when it comes to parenting. You should not be shocked when men get angry and push back.

If society and feminism now says men are not needed as parents. When society and modern feminism tells them they are unwanted and toxic people, except for being an ATM, don't be shocked when men reject being an ATM.

When women and the law reject the ability of men to have input in the developing fetus and the ultimate outcome, birth. Then tell men they have an obligation to be an ATM and bank but no other rights - as a matter of fact, no rights at all, only obligations - and the women have all the rights. Don't be surprised when they call that gender inequality.

Religion has been rejected by our society as useless and actually some say immoral. Traditional values have been rejected in favor of a "new morality" a new set of values. These new values reject the idea of negative values being applied to any and all types of adult consensual sexual gratification. When the "old values" are rejected, and the idea that no one should be shamed or held back from sexual gratification of any kind for consenting adults, one has to expect people to reject any values attached to the act.

Now that the act is value free and even encouraged by TV, Movies, and society at large one should not expect it's initial consequences (pregnancy) to hold any value or moral imperative.

Now that women can value free make the decision up until an infant takes its first breath to kill it, and there is no moral judgement that the infant is nothing more than fetal tissue - one should expect a rejection of the value of the fetal tissue and ones responsibility toward it. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just the way it is in society today and the way the progressive liberals demand it be.

One should expect men to reject any responsibility for the fetal tissue.

One should expect men to find no moral value or any value at all in being an ATM for something that has zero value and is not even human until one day a woman declares it so - then the woman says a man must pay and pay an pay because she decided not to have an abortion but she and she alone decided to allow the fetal tissue to become a human being.

This is the result of the total societal rejection of the "old" values and the implementation of the new progressive/liberal value/morality system. One that places zero value on all fetal tissue through week 39, until a woman and only the woman makes the decision for it to be human, leaving males completely out of the picture, both legally and morally.

The new morality has led directly to making gender equality one of the highest values in today's society. Once gender equality becomes more important than relationships, more important than any biological considerations or reality, one has to expect not just women but also men to begin to demand equality.

Our society places an enormous value on the rights of all genders (except straight males) to force others to accept their ideas of equality based on what the genders (except straight males) think is equitable and fair. Even when it comes to XY being allowed to compete on female athletic teams and display penis' openly in girls (children's) locker rooms in Jr High and High school, and females are punished if they disagree or complain.

With all of this happening, why should one be surprised when straight males have a logical argument for their gender equality, taking no one else's rights or value into account.

As I have demonstrated over and over, the straight males who are so despised by society, actually have a logical point. Their logic, while cold, while amoral in old fashioned terms, is really quite logical in today's progressive society. According to the "new morality" they also have a moral point in not being used as ATM's for someone else's decisions.

a reply to: The2Billies

Well said. It's funny that people opposed to this line of thinking (equality of choice) rely on moral arguments as a basis to strip men of having any choice (e.g. "because we as a society don't allow men to abandon their children").

Yet these are the same people who would scold you for raising morality in the abortion debate.

a reply to: The2Billies

Lol.. the first thing I want to point out is that those judeo-christian teaching that you seem to be promoting
Tells women to obey men in everything.
Which, gives men the final say in everything..
Unless, of course, the man decides she doesnt have be an obedient little servant and let's her have the final say occasionally..

Dont ask me why I rejected those teachings unless you are willing to accept the answer I give you.

But, since you brought it up, hey, god seems to have left you men in charge, he is gonna probably hold you guys responsible for the mess. All the evils we have today, the unwanted pregnancies, the abortions, the absent fathers, the orphans and unwanted babies, well, they've always been, regardless of how liberal people were or how liberated women were. Govts dont intervene unless there is a need to and usually the need has to be large enough to be causing big enough problems that get their attention.

So god decides to allow men to divorce their wives when he notices the growing number of women and kids abandoned in a society where they have no other option but to be wives and mothers dependent of husbands.

Govt and religious groups take it upon themselves to provide for the women and children when the men slack off of their responsibility and women drown their newborns that cant feed or shelter. Orphanages and workhouses are built to house and care for the poor.. and then the budget is cut because the people dont want to pay the taxes... children died, women literaly howl.
All this was before women were liberated, they didnt have any legal right to say no to their husband...
The men were In charge, just like god ordained.

originally posted by: jwlaffer
a reply to: The2Billies

Well said. It's funny that people opposed to this line of thinking (equality of choice) rely on moral arguments as a basis to strip men of having any choice (e.g. "because we as a society don't allow men to abandon their children").

Yet these are the same people who would scold you for raising morality in the abortion debate.

"You men?" Dear, I am a woman. Not only that a retired Psychology professor. Your assumption was a bit sexist, especially since I said earlier in this thread I am a women.

I was classic liberal in my youth, which is zip, zero, nada anywhere near like today's progressive liberalism, nothing at all. Turned libertarian which is now the antithesis of todays progressive liberal. Finally turned conservative when I saw the unintended consequences of liberalism, and the impotence of libertarianism.

You wanted religion stripped from the public forum and public life, you won. Christians and Jews are despised by liberals now and called terrorists by many of them. You won my dear. Why be so angry?

Progressives/liberals wanted old fashioned morality stripped from the public forum and public life, they won. Why not celebrate?

The men who are upset are simply making the same amoral argument the modern progressives are using. Don't cry to me if it hurts to have what you wanted turned on its head in a way that you find repugnant.

Get used to it, it is the way of life these days. Morality is ever changing with no compass, no base, no unchanging right and wrong, except what the progressives deem it is. Unfortunately that "morality" changes nearly daily. What progressive liberals wished for has come to fruition, and so have the consequences you are so upset about.

Men demanding gender equality and equal rights and the right to not be used as ATM's when it is convenient for the progressive liberals and given nothing but being spit in the eye in return.

Men are being called toxic, called the cause of all the ills on the earth, being blamed for things most of them alive now never did or thought of doing. The new morality has made them feel like worthless pieces of sh** - deal with with.

It is the world progressive liberals have made and many men are angry. Men want true gender equality and it upsets you? Because you deem what they want it is "immoral", give me a break, morality with any foundation is a thing of the past. Today's progressive liberal and societal morality is like quicksand - morals fall quickly into the quagmire as new ideas of morality jump on top.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I get that it's the woman that has the child.

Apparently you don't.

A woman doesn't just "have" a child. She goes through nine months of physical changes, morning sickness, swelling, heart burn, migraine headaches and health issues that can affect her heart, liver, kidneys, blood, brain, literally risking life and limb to "have" a baby. Her body will be forever changed.

A man has no right to expect a woman to give him a baby, just because they had sex. There is no tango dance going on after the first 10 minutes. After the sex act, she's on her own.

The day that someone else can carry her pregnancy to term is the day you can say there are two people involved.

When it comes down to it.. Ideally I think it is between the people involved. I don't think a woman should be able to just keep the baby then demand things like child support.

Wow. ATS has become an ideological cesspool.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

When you consider there is another thread where people are complaining that we ain't having enough babies and its gonna result in the white majority being replace by immigrant minorities..
Ya, just one big right wing circle jerk, pat each other on the back, assure each other your way is the right way..
And of course, liberals are the demonic enemies of the American way..