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.

 

Free Speech: Ex Had Abortion Against His Will

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


First I want to say that fathers need to have a say in the abortion issue.

Secondly, I believe that most abortions are performed because women have gotten involved with men that don't want to share responsibility, leaving women the sole caretaker. I've never seen a happy, well adjusted couple in the clinic asking for an abortion. It might happen, but I bet it's rare.

So your saying, even though he admitted he wasn't sure if it was really an abortion or a miscarriage, that it's still okay to put up the board, including the first one that included her name?

Fathers should have a say in the matter, but it's not even been confirmed she had an abortion. If he wanted to fight for father's rights, he could have done it in a much more tasteful and much less spiteful manner. The first board had to be removed because it included the woman's name. There was a better way to go about this whole thing. I think he's doing it just out of spite, especially because he admitted he wasn't sure what happened with the ex-girlfriend's pregnancy.

It really ticks me off when this is an issue because birth control is so easily available to both sexes. I wish people of both sexes would learn to be responsible or keep it in their darn pants.


My bad, I should have read more closely. I didn't know that it was unconfirmed. But on the other hand, if she told him it was an abortion, even if it was a miscarriage, I don't blame him for being angry. Putting her name on the billboard could open him up to a lawsuit, IF he was lieing about her. But she would have to prove that in court.

Short of that though, yes, I do see it as his right to put up a billboard on the subject, even if her name is left off of it.

Now this I take exception to...



...most abortions are performed because women have gotten involved with men that don't want to share responsibility, leaving women the sole caretaker.


Maybe birth control is something she should have thought about BEFORE she slept with a man she was not married to and did not want to be a father.

EDIT to add: And clearly in this case, the exact opposite was true. And is true more often than the powers that be would lead you to believe.
edit on 8-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


...and maybe he should have made sure he slept with someone who shared his same values and beliefs.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


...and maybe he should have made sure he slept with someone who shared his same values and beliefs.


Yeah, that might hold some water if he ALSO had the choice to abort, put the kid up for adoption, or keep the kid. Her choice, her responsibility.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


I had the exact opposite situation. My husband encouraged me to abort both my pregnancies. I told him NO! A hundred times NO! Refusing to abort our son ended our marriage, but so be it. Maybe I should have put up a billboard calling him out to be a louse. That's why I gave him the choice to pay child support or not.

I still think the billboard could have been done more tastefully. In our area there are a lot of pro life boards. Each one featuring a cute baby doing something even cuter, with facts about when what they're doing occurs in the womb. I know those have changed some minds. The one that moved me is the one about when babies begin dreaming in the womb. I can't have kids anymore, but it's nice to learn about fetal development. Shock and awe only works until the shock wears off, then messages (pro or con) have to become more and more graphic. That's why I hope the pro-life organizations stick with the cute ones.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


I had the exact opposite situation. My husband encouraged me to abort both my pregnancies. I told him NO! A hundred times NO! Refusing to abort our son ended our marriage, but so be it. Maybe I should have put up a billboard calling him out to be a louse. That's why I gave him the choice to pay child support or not.

I still think the billboard could have been done more tastefully. In our area there are a lot of pro life boards. Each one featuring a cute baby doing something even cuter, with facts about when what they're doing occurs in the womb. I know those have changed some minds. The one that moved me is the one about when babies begin dreaming in the womb. I can't have kids anymore, but it's nice to learn about fetal development. Shock and awe only works until the shock wears off, then messages (pro or con) have to become more and more graphic. That's why I hope the pro-life organizations stick with the cute ones.


Marriage makes things a little more complex. But if you knew he did want kids, why did you not only have one, but TWO kids by him?

And it doesn't matter what "choice" you gave him. That is not the law. If you suddenly had to go in welfare, you would be REQUIRED to sue him for support.

And I certainly think this billboard was a lot more tasteful than mutilated fetuses.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I love how the discussion on mainstream media and even in this thread is more about should he have the right to do what he did rather than "hey that woman KILLED his child". A child's life was taken from its father and all people can talk about is his billboard.

Sickening. Trulely sickeing.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


So long as abortion is legal, the only issue at hand is the rights of the father.

EDIT to add, there is an article and discussion in this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...talking about the serious lack of a man's reproductive rights.
edit on 9-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by e11888
 


So long as abortion is legal, the only issue at hand is the rights of the father.

EDIT to add, there is an article and discussion in this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...talking about the serious lack of a man's reproductive rights.
edit on 9-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)


As you can see, the discussion has seemed to have ended with my last post dated on the 8th. One day friend, people will see the truth in this and understand that taking an innocent human life is never right no matter how young. The tragedy thus far is that people actually accept the murder of a child as the rights of a woman.
edit on 10-6-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
Is the line for Free Speech being drawn, or is it vanishing? That is the biggest debate right now and it is sparked by different incidents.

A new incident was just reported in FOX News, reporting "a New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights". (Source)

This is interesting because this is the kind of flares which is needed for the discussion of free speech to continue. This discussion and debate is important because either a line should be drawn, or the line should be abolished completely.

Right now a huge confusion exists, no one know whether a line is being drawn, or the line has vanished.

The above incident is going in court, what would the outcome of the proceedings mean for the debate?

Here is the billboard, decide for yourself:


I personally believe there should be a line, but it is hard to draw the line in an exact position.


His wishes do not matter. The day he grows a uterus, he can do what he wants with it.

However, i would argue that he has a right to put this sort of thing up. It's probably not libel, as it offers no names. However, I'm no expert; it could cause harm to both of them in their community even without names, so it may still count.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by confreak
Is the line for Free Speech being drawn, or is it vanishing? That is the biggest debate right now and it is sparked by different incidents.

A new incident was just reported in FOX News, reporting "a New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights". (Source)

This is interesting because this is the kind of flares which is needed for the discussion of free speech to continue. This discussion and debate is important because either a line should be drawn, or the line should be abolished completely.

Right now a huge confusion exists, no one know whether a line is being drawn, or the line has vanished.

The above incident is going in court, what would the outcome of the proceedings mean for the debate?

Here is the billboard, decide for yourself:


I personally believe there should be a line, but it is hard to draw the line in an exact position.


His wishes do not matter. The day he grows a uterus, he can do what he wants with it.

However, i would argue that he has a right to put this sort of thing up. It's probably not libel, as it offers no names. However, I'm no expert; it could cause harm to both of them in their community even without names, so it may still count.


I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.


It's not an opinion, it's a fact; unless he trusses her up or kills her, there is no way he can stop her from doing whatever she wishes to her own body, including anything growing out of it. He has no control over her. Even if the law provided him such control, it is impossible for him to enforce, short of again, either incapacitating her or killing her.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a man has no more say over abortions than a woman has over vasectomies.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.


It's not an opinion, it's a fact; unless he trusses her up or kills her, there is no way he can stop her from doing whatever she wishes to her own body, including anything growing out of it. He has no control over her. Even if the law provided him such control, it is impossible for him to enforce, short of again, either incapacitating her or killing her.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a man has no more say over abortions than a woman has over vasectomies.


That doesnt mean we should support Government funded organisations, like Planned Parenthood, that do nothing but promote the idea that the muder of a human child is sexy and cool while removing all rights from the father in the process. All it does is continue to let these people make profit off of the death of human children and spark the idea thats in some sick way killing your child means your pro woman's rights.

I understand that child birth is not an easy process. I understand that the woman has to go through pain and that her body may never be the same again. But guess what? That was her choice. She decided she wasnt going to use protection when birth control is readily available just as the man decided he wouldnt invest in a condom.

I personally stand at a cross roads here because Im both pro choice and pro life. I firmly believe that if it took 2 human beings to create a life that it should take both of those same human beings to destroy it. The fact is a female can walk right into a clinic, regardless of her mental health status, and literally kill the child of a man who doesnt even need to be informed. That in itself is wrong and if you cant see how theres really nothing more I can say. But to say that if that same woman decides to have the child that the man is now responsible by the court of law, when she herself can waive that responsiblity, is insanity.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
That doesnt mean we should support Government funded organisations, like Planned Parenthood, that do nothing but promote the idea that the muder of a human child is sexy and cool while removing all rights from the father in the process. All it does is continue to let these people make profit off of the death of human children and spark the idea thats in some sick way killing your child means your pro woman's rights.


Speaking from an obvious position of ignorance doesn't help your position; it just makes you look like someone not worth paying any attention to. Not a single word of this paragraph is actually true.

1) Planned Parenthood is already barred from using government funding for abortion procedures.
2) Planned parenthood provides a very wide variety of services beyond and unrelated to abortion.
3) Planned Parenthood does not portray abortion as "sexy" or "cool."
4) As I pointed out, the father actually has no rights in this case; nor should he. To grant them would effectively remove control of a woman's body from her.
5) Planned Parenthood is non-profit.
6) Having an abortion is neither pro- nor anti-feminist. However supporting the woman's right to manage her own body and future is very much pro-feminist.


I understand that child birth is not an easy process. I understand that the woman has to go through pain and that her body may never be the same again. But guess what? That was her choice. She decided she wasnt going to use protection when birth control is readily available just as the man decided he wouldnt invest in a condom.


Actually thanks to the efforts of people like yourself, birth control is becoming steadily less available; for instance, Planned Parenthood was once a steady supplier of contraceptives and prophylactics. Thanks gto conservatives pushing for greater government intrusion into the lives of private individuals - as you wish to do - this ability has been diminished. Further instances are pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed contraceptives, with the support of the courts.

Also worth mention is that not every insemination is intentional. Rapes happen. Broken condoms happen. Contraceptive failures happen. Abandonment happens. Financial issues happen. health problems arise. And while I understand you likely belong to a faith that strongly favors the idea of eternal torment for a moment's sin, the fact is, neither a woman nor a man should have to see their futures get flushed down the toilet because of a fumble after a night on the town.


I personally stand at a cross roads here because Im both pro choice and pro life. I firmly believe that if it took 2 human beings to create a life that it should take both of those same human beings to destroy it.


Your firm belief is absolutely ludicrous, then. One person should not have veto power over another person's body. This is, in effect, what you are saying should be the case.


The fact is a female can walk right into a clinic, regardless of her mental health status, and literally kill the child of a man who doesnt even need to be informed.


And? I don't think you understand something here; this is not some sort of tragic loss to the guy involved. Honestly, it's not. In the time it takes for a woman to find out she's pregnant, the father could have knocked up dozens of other women. Our investment to the situtation is considerably less, and our "loss" from Abortion is VASTLY lower than the "loss" a woman could face from carrying to term.

For one, no man has ever died from childbirth.


That in itself is wrong and if you cant see how theres really nothing more I can say.


Trust me, you've said far more than enough.


But to say that if that same woman decides to have the child that the man is now responsible by the court of law, when she herself can waive that responsiblity, is insanity.


This is simply because it's much, much easier for the male to ditch his parental responsibilities, and happens with far more frequency. Remember, we just don't have the same investment, here. Deadbeat dads are vastly more common than deadbeat moms.

besides; you seem like the sort of person who'd give lots of money to any woman who elects to carry to term, right? I mean you want no abortion, so you're willing to pay for it, correct?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


See the problem is I, unlike yourself, believe that human life deserves more than being terminated on a cold hard table simply because people like you cannot understand the fact that what these women are doing is murder. Women do not simply create a child out of thin air or by themselves and they shouldnt be able to terminate a life that took 2 human beings to create.

ALL MEN ARE WORTHLESS SCUMBAGS AND WILL WALK OUT ON YOU IF YOU EVER DECIDE TO GIVE BIRTH!

That is exactly the message you and organisations like planned parenthood are attempting to portray and honestly Im sick of it.

Throw men in jail when they dont want to have a child or even refuse to pay for childsupport which demands the father pay 150% of the cost of raising said child RUINING HIS LIFE IN THE PROCESSS (its always all about the woman).... but by all means let the woman walk into a clinic and literally murder a man's child with no questions asked. Good logic sir, very good logic. Are you on crack?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


I can't say that I am against the choice. I don't believe the government has to mandate that, and I have seen first hand what it means to see children who would have been better of to never have been born.

Just the same though, I do believe that abortion is taken way too lightly and that other laws muddle the issue. I don't mean to sound sexist, but if women were taught to take control of their own sexuality, rather than leaving it in the hands of men all the time, abortion would very quickly come down to cases of true necessity. Sadly, in this day and age when pregnancy can be used as a power-play over men, and a potential for profit, abortion becomes just another tool in the toolbox for people's life strategy.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by e11888
I would like to counter argue the oppinion that his wishes do not matter in regards to his own child. The day that a woman can conceive a child on her own, she can do what she wants with THE HUMAN LIFE.


It's not an opinion, it's a fact; unless he trusses her up or kills her, there is no way he can stop her from doing whatever she wishes to her own body, including anything growing out of it. He has no control over her. Even if the law provided him such control, it is impossible for him to enforce, short of again, either incapacitating her or killing her.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a man has no more say over abortions than a woman has over vasectomies.


She has no right to terminate the life of his seed after she has already consented to a sexual reproductive act. If it was rape, it might be a different story.

Short of that, if you want women to have the choice of abortion exclusively, then they can take the responsibility that goes along with that choice, and provide for that child themselves if the man is unable or unwilling to be a father. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


See the problem is I, unlike yourself, believe that human life deserves more than being terminated on a cold hard table simply because people like you cannot understand the fact that what these women are doing is murder.


Appeal to emotion isn't an effective tactic in an argument of logic; what if the table is warm and fluffy? Does that make a difference?

The problem is that you regard a woman's life as being inferior to a man's desires (specifically yours). What she wants for herself should be trumped by what he wants, according to you. The fetus itself doesn't much matter to your argument; if it's a girl, it's just going to end up in this same situation where she has to bow to the desires of someone else against what she recognizes as best for herself.


Women do not simply create a child out of thin air or by themselves and they shouldnt be able to terminate a life that took 2 human beings to create.


Now, I want you to consider, very, very carefully here; I have a stake in this discussion. I was going to be a father, myself, and the woman I was with terminated the pregnancy at four months. Did it upset me? yeah, at first. In fact for a while I was pretty much like you, and the guy in the OP, thinking I should have been able to tell her no. Then I realized two things; One, I loved the girl. I didn't really want to be able to command her, especially not when it comes to something like her own pregnancy; no matter what, she ALWAYS has far more at stake than me. And two, I had no actual emotional investment in the fetus. I didn't know it. I spent no time bonding as a father to child. It didn't have a name. It didn't even have a fully-developed digestive tract. My part in making it amounted to absolutely no effort (Seriously, that was not "work"
) and I lost absolutely nothing from her decision. if she wanted to have a child with me, we could get right down to it and it'd be no problem with me; I don't have a "limited supply" after all.


ALL MEN ARE WORTHLESS SCUMBAGS AND WILL WALK OUT ON YOU IF YOU EVER DECIDE TO GIVE BIRTH!

That is exactly the message you and organisations like planned parenthood are attempting to portray and honestly Im sick of it.


Far from it. You can stop lying now; it's also counter-productive. I certainly don't consider myself a worthless scumbag, nor would I ever bail out on my responsibilities as a parent, should it ever occur.

What I'm saying is simply that the woman has far more at risk with the pregnancy than a man does. Vastly more. This is a small part of why her say should count more - the main reason is simply that it's her body, not his, and he doesn't have veto power.


Throw men in jail when they dont want to have a child or even refuse to pay for childsupport which demands the father pay 150% of the cost of raising said child RUINING HIS LIFE IN THE PROCESSS (its always all about the woman)....


What part of "the woman has higher risk and more burden" aren't you understanding? It's really not a difficult concept. Ever seen a single mother try to get to work when her regular babysitter is sick? Or how about when he kid brings home some bug from school? Children are an enormous financial burden, and since it's vastly easier for the man to walk out than the woman, this is the sort of situation you get.

Do men sometimes get screwed by the system? No doubt, it happens. The solution is to find a more informed method of adjudicating child support, and doing away with the tendency to automatically award custody to the mother. NOT by stripping the woman of her rights to self-determination.


but by all means let the woman walk into a clinic and literally murder a man's child with no questions asked. Good logic sir, very good logic.


If it's anyone's child, it's hers. I'm sorry, friend, but ejaculation is not sufficient basis to claim equal investment.


Are you on crack?


if I were I'd have better things to do than talk to you, don't you think?
edit on 10/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
She has no right to terminate the life of his seed after she has already consented to a sexual reproductive act. If it was rape, it might be a different story.


Yes, she very absolutely does. As I keep reminding you guys, ejaculation is not investment; not physical, and certainly not emotional. Basically put, you're turning your swimmers into a gift, and the recipient is then free to do whatever the hell they want with it. You have no more say in the matter. The moment you emptied your testicles, you lost all patent rights.


Short of that, if you want women to have the choice of abortion exclusively, then they can take the responsibility that goes along with that choice, and provide for that child themselves if the man is unable or unwilling to be a father. You can't have it both ways.


So in other words, blackmail; "Either you surrender your right to self-determination and submit to my authority as a male, or I will leave you and your offspring to swing in the wind." You're asking for either the right to dictate to a woman, or the right to shirk your own responsibilities.

And there's the thing; responsibility. it's a favorite position of anti-women people that she should bear the full onus of "responsibility for her actions." The rub is, abortion is taking responsibility. If she can't afford the situation, she has it dealt with. That's being responsible. That's seeing "uh oh, there's a problem" and taking action to remedy the problem. if she chooses this solution, YOU, the male in the situation, don't lose anything. Honestly, you don't lose one single thing. In your case, your pride gets all bent because she didn't kneel before you and beg permission, but hey, who gives a flip about your pride except you?

On the other hand, if the child is carried to term, both parents now have equal responsibility to it, by dint of being the parents. They both have a financial and emotional obligation to ensure this kid survives, grows up, and is a functional person.

In other words, at conception you both have the potential for obligation once the child is born. You both have the financial and all other responsibilities that will come with that child. However, at any time, for any reason, the mother can decide to take a differently responsible option and end the pregnancy. She's the majority investor, after all, and is certainly a better judge than you are of what to do with her body and her future. if she chooses thus., YOU LOSE NOTHING. if she chooses to carry to term, well, your obligation exixsted from the moment you decided to not use a condom, whether you like it or not.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   


Appeal to emotion isn't an ineffective tactic in an argument of logic; what if the table is warm and fluffy? Does that make a difference?


See now you're just trying to be cute. It matters not if the head was slashed off on the floor or in a bathtub with candles and flower petals. Its still murder nonetheless.



The problem is that you regard a woman's life as being inferior to a man's desires (specifically yours). What she wants for herself should be trumped by what he wants, according to you. The fetus itself doesn't much matter to your argument; if it's a girl, it's just going to end up in this same situation where she has to bow to the desires of someone else against what she recognizes as best for herself.


Inferior? Far from it. Women are obviously the stronger of our species and of that I have no doubt. I simply cannot see how a woman can literally ruin a man's entire life by making a single decision but she on the other hand is exempt from all legal repercussions regardless of that choice.



Now, I want you to consider, very, very carefully here; I have a stake in this discussion. I was going to be a father, myself, and the woman I was with terminated the pregnancy at four months. Did it upset me? yeah, at first. In fact for a while I was pretty much like you, and the guy in the OP, thinking I should have been able to tell her no. Then I realized two things; One, I loved the girl. I didn't really want to be able to command her, especially not when it comes to something like her own pregnancy; no matter what, she ALWAYS has far more at stake than me. And two, I had no actual emotional investment in the fetus. I didn't know it. I spent no time bonding as a father to child. It didn't have a name. It didn't even have a fully-developed digestive tract. My part in making it amounted to absolutely no effort (Seriously, that was not "work"
) and I lost absolutely nothing from her decision. if she wanted to have a child with me, we could get right down to it and it'd be no problem with me; I don't have a "limited supply" after all.


So now it all comes out does it? Is this the reason behind this arguement and why you're so active in these discussions? Is it possible that you never really let that go? It could very well be possible that this is the only way you can deal with it by attempting to justify her actions.

I understand the woman has more at stake, but like I said before, it was her decision not to use birth control (just as it was to not use a condom) and it is a responsibility to both the female and the male. But let me be clear, to justify the death of a human child by stating that its okay because you didnt know him or her is borderline HITLER type logic. Regardless if its been living for 2 months or 40 years you are still the father.



Far from it. You can stop lying now; it's also counter-productive. I certainly don't consider myself a worthless scumbag, nor would I ever bail out on my responsibilities as a parent, should it ever occur.

What I'm saying is simply that the woman has far more at risk with the pregnancy than a man does. Vastly more. This is a small part of why her say should count more - the main reason is simply that it's her body, not his, and he doesn't have veto power.


I havent stated a single lie in this thread. We are no longer just talking about her body at this point. We are talking about the body of a human child growing in her body that wasnt placed there by herself alone. When the day comes that females can reproduce on their own will be the day that I will agree with you. But for now, as it takes two human beings to create a child, it should take those same two human beings to destroy it. She is no less responsible for being pregnant than he is for knocking her up.



What part of "the woman has higher risk and more burden" aren't you understanding? It's really not a difficult concept. Ever seen a single mother try to get to work when her regular babysitter is sick? Or how about when he kid brings home some bug from school? Children are an enormous financial burden, and since it's vastly easier for the man to walk out than the woman, this is the sort of situation you get.

Do men sometimes get screwed by the system? No doubt, it happens. The solution is to find a more informed method of adjudicating child support, and doing away with the tendency to automatically award custody to the mother. NOT by stripping the woman of her rights to self-determination.


What part of she is equally responsible for being pregnant dont you understand? Its really not a difficult concept. Ever seen a single father try to work when his regular babysitter is sick? How about when the kid brings home some bug from school? Children arent an enormous financial burden, they've been raised in everything from tents, cardboard boxes, mud homes, straw homes, wood homes, brick homes, public housing, mansions and castles. This idea of raising a child isnt something new and exciting.

Its easier for a man to walk out on a woman? Because last I checked you go to jail when you do that and dont pay child support..... but a woman can walk out on a single father and leave the entire family with nothing and the court system wouldnt shed a single tear. Trust me, Im good friends with 2 very loving single fathers.

Yes men get screwed over by the system when it comes to things like this. The problem is, women dont.


If it's anyone's child, it's hers. I'm sorry, friend, but ejaculation is not sufficient basis to claim equal investment.


Yes because she made the child all on her own. That means its her child. The father means nothing.


if I were I'd have better things to do than talk to you, don't you think?


I have no idea but I'm not going to back down simply because you can throw out insults and make up your own oppinions to make yourself feel better.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Seem's a little rash to me..Why can't he use Facebook to air his dirty washing like everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join