posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:14 PM
Originally posted by generik
how about the "free will" not to have sex? as it takes two to make one it should take two to kill one. but no the choice only rests with ONE because
they are too WIMPY or SELFISH to actually face their mistake, and so murder an innocent instead.
Absolutely, both sexes have the free will to not have sex, however, its a woman's choice to have an abortion or not because she is the one who has to
bare the potential offspring. As for women being "whimpy" and "selfish" i suggest that until you know the experience of knowing your pregnant,
shut your mouth and dont act like you know what you're talking about.
even an orphanage is better than DEAD, i know my friends that were in orphanages would agree with that. was not "bad for the state"
The state having to pay for the rearing of children is financially draining. Money that could be spent elsewhere.
funny women have the SAME choices, and share the same responsibility. so lets not lay all the blame on the guys, the gals share an EQUAL
Exactly, but my point is that men have no need to start playing the victim card if they get someone pregnant, they know they have choices to stop that
from happening so they cant play devils advocate when SHTF.
what is a life compared to a short time and a little cash? i know i would not see it as a waste of time and money if i found out that i might
have a son or daughter that i could SAVE from death.
Situation is completely avoidable if people took responsibility instead of running away. Court shouldn't have to chase potential fathers, its
they may not be "super sluttish hood rats", but they did willingly "spread their legs", (your linguistics). but guys are just as EQUALLY at
fault. it does take two after all, it doesn't mean that EITHER party does everyone they see. that does not mean the guy should have any less
responsibility or choice of what happens.
Equal responsibility yes, Equal choice? No. Woman's body, final choice is with her.
if parents were willing to be nice about things there would be no real "moving", they would just live at a different house half of the
time. perhaps there should be a clause that BOTH parents have to live say within two blocks from each other for the sake of the children. or would
that be unfair and hurt the rights of the parents? the "weekends at the other parent's place" was one of the BIGGEST Things many of my
friends with divorced parents hated. as for the parents the same holds true, the "main parent" only gets to deal with them during the week and deal
with all the "bad, boring stuff", none of the fun stuff, and the other parent feels they aren't a "real parent" as the can't really share the
"bad stuff", which can create stress between the parents which of course will also effect the kids. nothing about separated parents really "fits in
with real life", no matter what it is a nasty patchwork solution. at least 50% custody is fairer for ALL involved.
50/50 sounds fair on paper but as ive said, its impractical.
they are MORE viable that the way things are done now. especially since it would remove a lot of the hurt that these situations can cause
EVERYONE who is involved for the rest of their lives.
no more like an angry MAN who has seen how the world DOESN'T work, and all the hurt it causes both the parents and children, or even parents
who have had their offspring murdered just because ONE PERSON was so selfish they couldn't be bothered giving so little of themselves so that the
child would live.
Yeah im still thinking you're a teenager.