RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument

RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 7:53:03 AM)
quote: Sorry, tweak, but in my eyes, once there is a pregnancy, there is both fatherhood and motherhood. If the child is aborted, they are still fathers and mothers, but they merely have dead children. There are three people involved in every pregnancy, the father, the mother, and the child, but only one (the mother) has life/death powers. And the father has not been established... dont forget, we are talking about legal rights here. quote: It is hypocritical for a woman to say to a man "suck it up buttercup, you're a father whether or not you want to be one" because he had sex when she isn't willing to say the same to herself. How is it hypocritical? When she says that, she is also saying she will be a mother. Hell, not all women who give birth WANT to be a mother, but some accept, some dont. If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a mother, she is also telling the man... you dont have to be a father. The hypocrisy isnt there as you are implying it to be.

Moonhead -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 8:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: As far as that whole "if you're not going to pay to feed and house the kids, STFU about how the mothers are morally obliged to have them" thing goes, I take it you're aware that several economists have connected the increased access to abortion that followed Roe vs Wade with the fall in crime rates during the '90s? Yes, and, frankly, I disagree. Its more akin to the aging population at that time. You don't think that a lowered birthrate twenty odd years before might have been a complimentary factor to that?

BitYakin -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 9:36:39 AM)
quote: If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a mother, she is also telling the man... you dont have to be a father. she is ALSO saying, I am going to KILL YOUR CHILD, and YOU CAN"T STOP ME! GET OVER IT!

kalikshama -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 10:06:00 AM)
A man can bypass being put in this position by only fucking women who share his view on what should happen in the event of a accidental pregnancy.

Moonhead -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 11:44:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a mother, she is also telling the man... you dont have to be a father. she is ALSO saying, I am going to KILL YOUR CHILD, and YOU CAN"T STOP ME! GET OVER IT! It won't be a child for at least six months if she's terminating it. Man up and deal with it.

tazzygirl -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 12:08:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: As far as that whole "if you're not going to pay to feed and house the kids, STFU about how the mothers are morally obliged to have them" thing goes, I take it you're aware that several economists have connected the increased access to abortion that followed Roe vs Wade with the fall in crime rates during the '90s? Yes, and, frankly, I disagree. Its more akin to the aging population at that time. You don't think that a lowered birthrate twenty odd years before might have been a complimentary factor to that? Birth rates us... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg Property crime rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg Almost every country saw the same type of swell in population as a result of the post war.... and they all saw a rise in crime in later years. [image]http://theltcpartnership.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-fro-pages/baby_boomers.jpg[/image] There isnt any way you can have that kind of spike in polupation and not have it affect statistics.

tazzygirl -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 12:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a mother, she is also telling the man... you dont have to be a father. she is ALSO saying, I am going to KILL YOUR FETUS, and YOU CAN"T STOP ME! GET OVER IT! yes SHE IS so GET OVER IT!

Moonhead -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 12:17:52 PM)
I didn't know that the baby boom was considered to last until 65: wasn't it supposed to be the post war generation who were more or less all growed up by then?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 12:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin she is ALSO saying, I am going to KILL YOUR CHILD, and YOU CAN"T STOP ME! GET OVER IT! You can't FORCE a woman to go through with a pregnancy that she doesn't want. And you can't FORCE a woman to terminate either, if she doesn't want to. Not only is it the law, but it's immoral to even suggest that anyone has that ultimate legal power over another adult human being. As for the "your child" bit, it isn't your child until it has been tested and proven to be your child. There's no question that it's hers - that's pretty obvious unles it was by IVF. So until you have 100% proven that it's your child, you don't have any rights whatsoever. Period.

tazzygirl -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/15/2013 12:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I didn't know that the baby boom was considered to last until 65: wasn't it supposed to be the post war generation who were more or less all growed up by then? Nope... by that point, the early boomers were just coming of age. Post–World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau Baby Boomer years as counted in other countries. France 1946–1974 United Kingdom 1946–1974 Finland 1945–1950 Germany 1955-1967 Sweden 1946–1952 Denmark 1946–1950 Netherlands 1946–1972 Ireland 1946–1982 Hungary 1946-1957 Iceland 1946–1969 New Zealand 1946–1961 Australia 1946–1961

Moonhead -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/16/2013 3:51:30 AM)
Ah, so that's the span between the boomers being born and the next generation who would inherit the world they'd wrecked* being born then. Thank you, that makes more sense. [:D] *(Just read some of that twat Douglas Coupland's incessant whining about this: his boomer parents should have slapped him a bit more often when he was a kid, imo.)

Zonie63 -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/16/2013 4:58:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I didn't know that the baby boom was considered to last until 65: wasn't it supposed to be the post war generation who were more or less all growed up by then? Nope... by that point, the early boomers were just coming of age. Post–World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau I never really did entirely agree with the way this was defined. Technically, I'm part of the Baby Boom, although my experience is that there is quite a difference between those of us born in the early 60s as opposed to those born in the late 40s. Culturally, I probably tend to identify more with Generation X than with the Baby Boomers. Although there's probably a lot of overlap anyway.

Lucylastic -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/16/2013 5:10:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I didn't know that the baby boom was considered to last until 65: wasn't it supposed to be the post war generation who were more or less all growed up by then? Nope... by that point, the early boomers were just coming of age. Post–World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau I never really did entirely agree with the way this was defined. Technically, I'm part of the Baby Boom, although my experience is that there is quite a difference between those of us born in the early 60s as opposed to those born in the late 40s. Culturally, I probably tend to identify more with Generation X than with the Baby Boomers. Although there's probably a lot of overlap anyway. Born in 62...I have to agree with you, but plebs dont have to like the labels...sigh

Edwynn -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/16/2013 6:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 0099]Maybe this has already been covered but didn't the male have a choice before getting his dick wet? Don't want the potential outcome of paying child support? The answer is pretty easy. It's not like anybody doesn't know where babies come from. If a person doesn't want to be in the position of supporting their own off spring, don't engage in the act that creates them. [/color] Maybe the woman should think about the repercussions before she decides that she wants a dick inside her, to balance the situation. (And yes, this has already been covered). No, it's not like nobody knows where babies come from, but if you are proposing to put the onus of any undesired outcome on men only, then you are in fact arguing that men are solely responsible for the situation, in which case the man should have sole discretion over the outcome. Think about what you are saying, if that's not too much trouble. Do you honestly think that the amount of money a woman receives in child support each month is sufficient to raise a child on? She is financially contributing to the support of the child as well. I never ventured into that at all, so I don't know how you came up with the interpretation of what I think about sufficiency of child support. But since you asked: sometimes the CS is more than enough, sometimes it is non-existent, and all points in between. Unfortunately the demographic where unintended pregnancies occur most often is the same one with the lousiest CS situation. To me, this is all the more reason to teach birth control thoroughly and early and make it most readily available to whatever demographic where the "unintended consequences" events arise most often. Aside from that, I think this thread (and all the like numerous threads in many forums) points out that education of the legal and financial repercussions should now be included as standard in all sex ed classes.

tazzygirl -> RE: A huge hypocrisy factor within gender argument (8/16/2013 7:10:54 AM)
Monthly Child Support Payments Average $430 per Month in 2010, Census Bureau Reports The statistics from Support Providers: 2010 show that 59 percent of the $41.7 billion in total payments were for child support for children under 21 ($24.4 billion), which was paid by 4.8 million parents. The remainder was paid to children over 21, parents, and other relatives or nonrelatives of the providers. Monetary support in 2010 was primarily for children, although it also included support for other nonhousehold members, such as parents or other relatives. The statistics for these tables come from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, a national survey designed to provide comprehensive details about the social and economic well-being of individuals and households. Other highlights include: Child support payments averaged $5,150 annually, or $430 per month. About 85 percent of child support providers were male and 15 percent were female. Annual child support payments averaged $5,450 from male providers and $3,500 from female providers. About three of every four child support providers had some type of an agreement or court order for support. About six-in-10 child support providers paid support for one child, three-in-10 supported two children, and the remaining one-in-10 supported three or more children. About 2.1 million providers supported people other than their children younger than 21, with 32 percent of these providing support for their parents. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html However.... It will cost an estimated $241,080 for a middle-income couple to raise a child born last year for 18 years, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released Wednesday. That's up almost 3% from 2011 and doesn't even include the cost of college. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/index.html 430 x 12 x 18 x 2 (the two being both parents) = 185760 430 a month wont pay most day cares for 1.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02