Thank you, from that point of view you are entirely correct, and I apologize.
Thank you even more... /salute from the top of the mountains and /hug.
The way I was looking at it, and this is personal opinion only, as all our posts are, was that other women in Texas are being asked to do something
that maybe they don't want to do.
And if I were to suggest that men in California are being asked to do something they don't want to do because of the politics of the region?
And this law just isn't fair, let alone also being a political ploy to suppress women voters in an election where a woman has an outside chance of
Sure, and where is the fairness in the laws that make it where a woman can have irresponsible sex and avoid the consequences... while men
participating equally in the same event will be forced to pay to support the child whether they want to or not?
It took two to tango, but only one has a real vote because of the 9 months of womb time. The 18 years of financial time are the "price" for the "man
being irresponsible"... even though it wasn't his womb to be in charge of.
And as an ATS member here even wrote a thread explaining... this law is a political ploy to remove men from the family... because it provides this
incentive for women and "price" for men.
She found herself in a relationship she was unhappy in, but couldn't afford to leave. She decided to get pregnant so she could collect benefits and
emphasized she was going to take her son and there were no men in their lives. I grew up in that latchkey single mom world surrounded by example after
example of this.
Now imagine a man saying "I'm divorcing you, taking our daughter who I only had so I could afford to leave you, and making sure no women are around
for a while".
Nuclear Bombs would fall... but the reverse is taken as a matter of course and as a "liberation for single moms". I'll tell you what... it's not
liberation for the son necessarily... no matter how genuinely hard the mother tries. Most divorces now are initiated by women and most are not because
This is because there is an unfair law which makes it so if a man and woman make the mutual decision to engage in sex where a pregnancy occurs by
accident and no agreement has been made about what to do in case of pregnancy... these are the options.
She can abort and stop everything there (unless she winds up carrying an emotional burden).
She can keep it and let the man make up his mind to help or not.
She can keep it and make the police force him to give her money.
She can keep it and if he can't pay... the rest of us will pay.
She can keep it and not tell the father and never see the father again.
No say... she has it or she doesn't it's her call.
If she does, you are legally bound for 18 years to help support the child without being allowed to help raise it except distantly on weekends on
If she doesn't but the man wanted to... he's now had his child aborted against his wishes.
He would be devastated if a doctor aborted without his and his wife's consent.
Is the emotional burden supposed to be less just because it was the mother that chose? The mother making the choice is a far more personal emotional
pain to carry than a doctor violating the married couple's rights.
And remember... she was not raped, abandoned, etc. We don't even have a term for a woman who intentionally takes a man's semen with no genuine intent
of letting him help raise it... only pay for it. Yet it happens. A lot.
They *both* behaved exactly the same way, but the outcome and consequences are completely different. 9 months of carrying a baby to term so the man
can keep the child if he wishes versus 18 years of income to fund a child they didn't agree to have and he doesn't get to raise.
So that was my thinking process, not in words but in a concept fairly obvious immediately. I thankfully acknowledge that you point out something I
didn't even think about, how many women would view it as saying "Look here, little lady..." I don't have that voice in me, so I didn't even consider
that someone would hear it like that. Again, my apology.
It's something we as a culture do a lot without realizing. Women are actually worse at degrading other women in this way than men. Especially almost
all women who existed before "women's liberation". The assumption is that for some reason the women in the 1900's had something "more" than the women
before them had... allowing them to finally break free... as opposed to an agenda from above nudged it along with ulterior motives.
It's never suggested that *most* women lived good healthy happy lives with their partners and were as content in their lives as a 21st century man
staying at home while the wife works can be content in his life. It's rarely suggested that like the feelings some have regarding the law this thread
is about... there was the publicly stated reason for the liberation... and the real effect desired long term
It's simply treated as "until we REAL women came along to protect all those POOR WEAK women" as opposed to making it possible for genuinely *abused*
women to finally be able to speak out. We also forget that men couldn't really speak out about their lot in life *either* at the same time in other
I grew up listening to how once women were able to start influencing things... they'd stop being used as sex objects. In the time I've lived I've
watched that be a complete lie and now that women are involved and able to directly profit from the hyper-sexualization of other women... it went into
Everyone should be seriously asking why men have been blamed for over-sexualizing women... when it wasn't until they got involved in the decision
making at ad agencies, TV shows, and everything else in the world that it exploded into a world where I can not walk through most businesses with
clothes without having women's sections show me 20 foot tall airbrushed to perfection models in see through underwear.
Whether this law is intended
to do what you feel it was, or is an oversight... I don't know. But we are all being divided and conquered... and
the gender line is the first one. Whatever disenfranchisement you think women have... men are also under their own that no woman has to deal with.
Focusing on a specific category of people as being deliberately targeted rather than ALL of us being targeted in different ways that matter to us...
to keep us constantly bitching at each other... is the issue.
This stuff isn't about disenfranchising women... it's about dividing men and women against each other very subtly.
edit on 10-12-2013 by
BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)