It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander
maybe, perhaps. would like to hear what a few women, informed women, have to say about that. seems equitable. that would dramatically increase abortions and adoptions though and i am not for that.
Not an Obamaite but he put it rather well he said we need to reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.
until men realize that every sperm is a potential financial liability and treat them like they do their credit score, this issue will not be solved.
Originally posted by arriana
The Rhythm Method? HA! Thats a joke. Do they not teach you this stuff in school anymore? Shall I give you a full run down of why calender based contraception methods are almost completely ineffective? Just how much would you like to know about the menstrual cycle, and what can affect it?
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
Because it's the woman's body that's carrying the fetus, she has the rights over her body and if she says the fetus goes than I suppose the fetus goes. Don't get me wrong I'm not fond of abortion but I'm also not fond of telling women what they can and can't do with their wombs.
Shouldn't this be obvious really?
Originally posted by arriana
Originally posted by CobraCommanderAside from that, it is not "HER" body we are talking about here. It is the body of an unborn child that is just as much the man's as it is the woman's. Abortion is not about gender, it is about life and death.
You carry the baby to term then. Equal rights yea?
Originally posted by CaDreamer
i only want one thing from the government. i pay my child support happily, and often go without food or other necessities myself so my children can eat, even sold my car because i could no longer afford it.
The thing i want from my government is to either force my ex to pay taxes on the income i provide her to care for my children or allow it as a tax deduction to assist low income fathers who are doing the right thing.
exes don't have to claim any of the money received in child support, the payer of the support is still taxed though. exes don't have to claim or pay federal income tax on alimony either. its optional.
if child support was deductible it would make it much easier to live for those who it impacts the hardest. i am a professional i earn over 50k a year i take home approx 24k of that. the rest goes to child support and a Cadillac insurance plan for my kids.
that would make it equitable, that would make it fair, that would make it a regular normal thing that men didn't mind doing at all.
Add taxes to the amount taken from me in that 26k a years that i never see, I forgot to include that in my formulaedit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (to add)edit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: to add
Why should a man whine about paying for a child he is the father to?
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I am sure if a male falls preganat he can get an abortion. Why would a man have the abortion option when it is biologically impossible for him to become in the condition required to obtain abortion?
Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by hotbakedtater
If abortion is taking responsibility, then why do men not have that same option? Particularly if a man knows that he cannot afford a child as much as he might want to be a father.
The question that should be asked is why are men having sex who do not want children?
Why should a woman be able to sue a man for money he does not have simply because she chose to have sex?
So you admit that a man needs a female to do his thinking for him?
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
Because it's the woman's body that's carrying the fetus, she has the rights over her body and if she says the fetus goes than I suppose the fetus goes. Don't get me wrong I'm not fond of abortion but I'm also not fond of telling women what they can and can't do with their wombs.
Shouldn't this be obvious really?
And what they CHOSE to do with their wombs is let a man impregnate it. New ballgame now ladies. You're not just thinking for one, but three people.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So you admit that a man needs a female to do his thinking for him?
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by CobraCommander
A fetus isn't a person, especially not legally. Perhaps later in the pregnancy its arguable
While the decision to have unprotected sex should indeed be a joint one once impregnated the fetus remains in the woman's body. As such the general consensus is that she has all rights over her own bodily functions. While I do think that women would be wise to engage in a discussion with their husbands/significant other as to whether or not to have an abortion the woman certainly has "jurisdiction" over her own body. You know the old adage about how your rights extend until they infringe upon another persons? Tell me a husband forcing his wife to get an abortion or coercing her into it isn't infringing upon her rights.
Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by CobraCommander
You are man enough to have a sexual relationship with any woman, then you can own up to your responsibilities to raise that child. A pretty simple concept. I do not want to here the entrapment BS.
That hs been explained for generations. Granted, it does take two parties, I'm not responsible for your actions and your not for mine.....except the government has taken that away......
Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander
no no no no no... i want to be able to deduct child support from my annual taxes i pay on my income. started a thread bout it ....really my ex in her household including my contribution makes about 3X my income.... i don't know if that is the norm... i do not support taxing poor unwed mothers that rely on the income to just get by. so perhaps i dont support that part at all. i agree that is a bad idea.
however the payer should be able to claim something but this is off topic ...lol like the rest of the threadedit on 31-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)