Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo Kids' Law' punishes women


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo Kids' Law' punishes women Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/13/2016 3:40:41 AM   
ServeMistrix


Posts: 9
Joined: 2/16/2014
Status: offline
Just worth noting, in Ohio, if you find out a child isnt yours by dna test after signing the birthcertifucate you are still on the hook for child support for 18 years. Even if you were defrauded into believing child was yours (cheating spouse etc).

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/13/2016 4:04:52 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
So if you were raped you deserve money.

I am starting to think with the overpopulation on this planet all kids should be sterilized and have to pay to have it reversed. Then they can catch STDs and AIDS and whatever and get rid of themselves.

There are Women on welfare who have been on welfare since they were 14 having their first kid. Now they are 50 and have their eighth kid. She goes to the bars and will fuck anyone who will buy her a few drinks and some crack. You think she deserves a check ?

Granted the kids do but they should not be in her custody so she gets nothing. How about you sue me for child support and i walk into court and say "I will be a better Parent so give me custody of the kid(s) and she can pay me.

Who says the Woman always gets the kid anyway ? In fact I know someone, a friend I haven't seen in a while as he moved away, wo was awarded custody and child support payments from the Mother. To get that he had to prove she was unfit, WHY ? What's more she stopped paying and he calls that phone number and the recording says something about "deadbeat Dads" and he made a big stink about it and made them change the recording, because he had a situation about a deadbeat Mom. I wonder if they ever took her driver's license. Yes, they do that here. If you don't pay they make it almost impossible for you to make any money and catch up, that is without working overtime and living on the street, and you can't get a job if you live on the street. In fact here you can't get a job without internet access and a phone, sometimes a smart phone is required. And if you owe any child support you lose your driver's license, even if it is a CDL and you are a truck driver. And if you try to drive to work they stop you and put you in jail and fine the fuck out of you and if you don't pay that you get a warrant block and can't even get license plates so you lose your car, so you can't even sleep in that.

This bit of ire I have is not really directed at you, but it really is that bad here. THEY WRECK YOUR LIFE. And just not being able to pay child support is no reason for that because if you were married and still living together he would be just as broke. It is like charging him a premium not to be with you. And that is usually not his choice in the first place. Here, the Woman can have the Man thrown out of his own house he bought with his own money and then he has to pay for two houses because she fell out of love.

Another thing is some of the Women here are nasty and ruthless. One I know of threw her Husband out, told him she had a restraining order against him so he couldn't come back (she had no grounds and couldn't get one anyway) but he believed her and stayed away and then she filed for divorce on the grounds of abandonment.

That is how it is here. That is why I ALWAYS use(d) a condom. No exceptions. There were only two Women I ever considered having kids with but it didn't work out. The condom doesn't come off until the wedding ring goes on. Go ahead and test me, but YOU pay for it. I don't owe you shit, unless you are a fucking whore.

T^T

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 9/13/2016 4:11:26 AM >

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/13/2016 12:53:50 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Germany and France legalise cuckoldry by insisting that step-fathers are legally liable for child support for non-biological children. That is very much about forcing some dude - any dude - to pay for a child.



You don't get it, do you?
Step-fathers (not married) are not liable for child support for non-biological children.
Wrong. The can be, have been, and will continue to be lumbered with child support obligations. You're simply ignorant. Go away and learn something about the subject you're fucking discussing.

In addition, France and Germany are reluctant to allow fathers to use DNA tests to establish lack of paternity because it would "interfere with harmonious family relations". They are completely indifferent to men being defrauded by lying women who falsely claim paternity.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/14/2016 2:37:20 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline
Endlessly repeating your nonsense will not make it right.

I explained the legal situation and procedures several times above.

Unability to understand and match facts to your self constructed view of the world is not my problem.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/14/2016 8:09:48 AM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

1) an egg cell (from mother)
2) a sperm cell (from father)
these 2 meeting and merging will start a process with a baby at the end (if everything works right)


one of them without the other does not work.



If you so readily acknowledge that it takes two to tango, then why your insistence that once the tangoing has been done it's only one that calls the shots (the woman).

Two people tango, and the result is that the woman is the sole arbiter on what happens next.
She can:
- Have the child (without consulting the man) and force him to pay child support.
- Abort the child (without consulting the man) and deny him a child he might have wanted to raise.
- Adopt the child out (without consulting the man) and thereby give up all parental rights and duties (something a man can NEVER do if she decides to keep the child), resulting in the fact that the man might have a child somewhere he might have wanted to raise that he doesn't even know about (and never will know about unless she graciously decides to tell him).

Why does she get to make all of those decision FOR THE MAN?

Why doesn't he get a choice to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent?

An 'oops' happened because two people had some fun... why is it now one party and one party alone who will dictate the outcome of the rest of the other party's live?

Men should get as much as a say as women do when it comes to deciding what happens after an unplanned pregnancy happens. Which includes claiming the child, or giving up all claim to it... just like women can...



< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/14/2016 8:10:42 AM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/14/2016 8:30:19 AM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

1) an egg cell (from mother)
2) a sperm cell (from father)
these 2 meeting and merging will start a process with a baby at the end (if everything works right)


one of them without the other does not work.



If you so readily acknowledge that it takes two to tango, then why your insistence that once the tangoing has been done it's only one that calls the shots (the woman).

Two people tango, and the result is that the woman is the sole arbiter on what happens next.
She can:
- Have the child (without consulting the man) and force him to pay child support.
- Abort the child (without consulting the man) and deny him a child he might have wanted to raise.
- Adopt the child out (without consulting the man) and thereby give up all parental rights and duties (something a man can NEVER do if she decides to keep the child), resulting in the fact that the man might have a child somewhere he might have wanted to raise that he doesn't even know about (and never will know about unless she graciously decides to tell him).

...


Apart from basic biology lessons and basic lessons of jurisdiction I have some other things to do as well.

To make it short: No she can't, some but not all of your list - at least here and in a few other civilised countries.

While the OP lamented the state of fathers' rights in Germany it turns out, in your country/ies they got even less. Therefore: Blame your own lawmakers. Kick their asses.

And none of you will in all likeliness change the basic procedure of pregnancy, birth and what follows in which the father after leaving his sperm behind is usually less involved than the mother. Too bad.


(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/14/2016 8:56:40 AM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

While the OP lamented the state of fathers' rights in Germany it turns out, in your country/ies they got even less. Therefore: Blame your own lawmakers. Kick their asses.



Since when has this become a discussion on "your country vs my country"?

My original post stated that I was surprised that no Western country has yet to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to claiming or abdicating parental rights, and that it would be an issue mostly solved if both parties where required to either claim or decline that claim after conception. At no point did I say anything about Germany specifically.

BTW, considering that you are making this a "yours vs my country", as far as I'm aware men's right regarding children are far closer to those of women in Belgium than they are in Germany.
For instance, child support is based on percentage of income (for both parties) instead of an arbitrary number which someone might not be able to afford. The paying party is also entitled to demand proof that the money is actually being spend on the child, and can ask for adjustments in case of 'overages'.
Further, child support is able to be waived in the case of co-parenting, and most often is, as it is presumed that when people divorce, all parties -including the children- will suffer a diminish of lifestyle, and there is thus no reason for the party who earns more to be forced to maintain the child's lifestyle on an equal level in both households.

That still leaves the issue that in every Western country (including Belgium), the woman in the sole arbiter of what to do in case of an unplanned pregnancy and men have no rights in the matter. Which is morally reprehensible, and ought to be changed.
Why you're arguing against that point is absolutely beyond me...

Just to be clear... is it your position that it's good that men have no rights when it comes to making a choice on what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy?



< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/14/2016 9:00:27 AM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/14/2016 1:32:35 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

While the OP lamented the state of fathers' rights in Germany it turns out, in your country/ies they got even less. Therefore: Blame your own lawmakers. Kick their asses.



Since when has this become a discussion on "your country vs my country"?


From the very first posts on ... if you bother to read from the beginning. If you look at the top of this page you 'll find a remark about Ohio. When reading certain Aussieamerican posts you 'll find a lot of references to the American situation with explicit remarks about France and Germany (without any knowledge of both)
quote:


My original post stated that I was surprised that no Western country has yet to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to claiming or abdicating parental rights, and that it would be an issue mostly solved if both parties where required to either claim or decline that claim after conception. At no point did I say anything about Germany specifically.


Which is wrong concerning "no western country". There are possibilities in case of adoption - which can only be discussed after birth of course.

quote:


BTW, considering that you are making this a "yours vs my country", as far as I'm aware men's right regarding children are far closer to those of women in Belgium than they are in Germany.
For instance, child support is based on percentage of income (for both parties) instead of an arbitrary number which someone might not be able to afford. The paying party is also entitled to demand proof that the money is actually being spend on the child, and can ask for adjustments in case of 'overages'.
Further, child support is able to be waived in the case of co-parenting, and most often is, as it is presumed that when people divorce, all parties -including the children- will suffer a diminish of lifestyle, and there is thus no reason for the party who earns more to be forced to maintain the child's lifestyle on an equal level in both households.

That still leaves the issue that in every Western country (including Belgium), the woman in the sole arbiter of what to do in case of an unplanned pregnancy and men have no rights in the matter. Which is morally reprehensible, and ought to be changed.
Why you're arguing against that point is absolutely beyond me...

Just to be clear... is it your position that it's good that men have no rights when it comes to making a choice on what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy?





Just to be clear - men have no rights on a pregnancy. Never, nowhere.
They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now.

Men have to wait until birth. Always.

Just to be clear again - men have rights - less than wished by many.

And obligations - more than wished by many.

Are they making the best of it ...? Ask them

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 11:47:39 AM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


Since when has this become a discussion on "your country vs my country"?


From the very first posts on ... if you bother to read from the beginning. If you look at the top of this page you 'll find a remark about Ohio. When reading certain Aussieamerican posts you 'll find a lot of references to the American situation with explicit remarks about France and Germany (without any knowledge of both)


I wasn't replying to the first post, I made a Fast Reply speaking generally about the subject, specifying specifically that I was talking about legislation in ALL Western countries.
What Germany specifically does is of no concern to me, besides the fact that it -like all other Western countries- denies men the same rights that it grants women when in regards to offspring.



quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

My original post stated that I was surprised that no Western country has yet to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to claiming or abdicating parental rights, and that it would be an issue mostly solved if both parties where required to either claim or decline that claim after conception. At no point did I say anything about Germany specifically.


Which is wrong concerning "no western country". There are possibilities in case of adoption - which can only be discussed after birth of course.




That is nonsense.

There isn't a Western country that allows MEN to put a child up for adoption without the woman's consent.
On the flip side, all Western countries (as far as I'm aware) allow women to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. All she needs to do to accomplish this is claim that she doesn't know who the father is.

Further, while a woman can abdicate her parental rights by means of adoption without the father's consent, he cannot do the same in case she decides to keep the child. In that case he is on the hook for child support EVEN IF it would have been his choice to put the child up for adoption.

So again, a woman can force a man to be involved in child rearing, regardless of his choices in the matter.
Or she can force him to not have an opportunity to raise his own child, even had he wanted to do so (by simple not telling him, and then adopting out the child).

Women have rights in the matter of whether to keep the child, men do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now.

Men have to wait until birth. Always.


I take it you are against abortion then?

Because biologically speaking, women have also needed to wait until birth. Always.

However that's not the case anymore. Women no longer have to wait until birth. Women now have the option to kill the man's offspring without his knowledge or consent, something that is absolutely unnatural, and has never before occurred in human history.

How is it that this change has made it so that women now have the right to decide whether to keep the child or not, yet men do not?
Biologically speaking, a man who fertilizes a woman has the right to see his offspring in the flesh, baring the pregnancy going amiss.
Women now have the potential to deny the man that right. Why is it that men have no say in the matter? Why do you support a woman's right to kill off a man's offspring without his consent, seeing that the ability to do so is clearly not based on natural biology?

Furthermore, biologically, historically speaking, both parents have always had the ability to abandon their offspring. A man not wanting to be involved in child rearing could just take off. The same with a woman not willing to raise her offspring. Sometimes this resulted in the death of the infant, sometimes some unrelated party, or the other parent would step in and raise the child.

Your premise that it's biologically naturally for women to have the ability to control a pregnancy, while men do not is ludicrous. Neither sex biologically has the ability to control a pregnancy, and it's exactly the fact that women now have gained that ability, while men have not, that's creating a huge rights imbalance between the sexes.

A further unnatural event compounding the issues is this new situation where forced parenting is now state sanctioned. Something which is relatively new, and biologically non-existing. Historically, biologically, both parents have been able to abandon unwanted offspring, even if the other party chose to keep and raise it.

It's exactly the fact that women have retained (and increased) their options to abandon offspring, while men's ability to do so has diminished that's causing the issues.
Women have options to abdicate their parental duties -adoption, abortion- without the consent of men.
Men have no options to abdicate their parental duties, unless a woman first grants him permission.

Take that inequality away by granting men the same rights as women (by giving them the option to state that they wish an abortion and thereby abdicating any responsibility for the child before birth even if the women elects to keep it) and you're taking 99% of the issues of unwilling men dodging child support out of the equation.

Women now, for the first time in history, have the choice on whether or not they wish to be parents before birth. They have further maintained the ability they have always had to abandon their offspring after birth.

Why are you so opposed to men having that exact same right?





< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/15/2016 11:55:35 AM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 12:32:13 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
When women can have the final decision on wether their husbands/boyfriends/lovers get to have a vasectomy or not.
That might be equal.
Maybe....


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 12:55:47 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

When women can have the final decision on wether their husbands/boyfriends/lovers get to have a vasectomy or not.
That might be equal.
Maybe....



Again that's a nonsensical position as men have no power of decision on whether a woman uses birth control or not.

Abortion does not equal birth control.

Furthermore, women have half a dozen of non-invasive birth control options available to them.
Men have ONE non-invasive birth control option available, which are condoms.

Again, why do you support women having the option to abdicate their parental duties without a man's consent (by abortion or adoption) but refuse to deny a man the same right without a woman's permission (by declaring he wishes either and thus abdicating his responsibilities regardless of the woman's choices to keep/adopt/abort)?

Considering that conception happens -planned and wanted or not- why are you advocating that it's the woman and the woman alone who gets to decide whether both parties then have to be parents or not?
Women can refuse parenthood. Why can't men?


< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/15/2016 12:57:58 PM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 1:39:24 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

When women can have the final decision on wether their husbands/boyfriends/lovers get to have a vasectomy or not.
That might be equal.
Maybe....



Again that's a nonsensical position as men have no power of decision on whether a woman uses birth control or not.

Abortion does not equal birth control.

Furthermore, women have half a dozen of non-invasive birth control options available to them.
Men have ONE non-invasive birth control option available, which are condoms.

Again, why do you support women having the option to abdicate their parental duties without a man's consent (by abortion or adoption) but refuse to deny a man the same right without a woman's permission (by declaring he wishes either and thus abdicating his responsibilities regardless of the woman's choices to keep/adopt/abort)?

Considering that conception happens -planned and wanted or not- why are you advocating that it's the woman and the woman alone who gets to decide whether both parties then have to be parents or not?
Women can refuse parenthood. Why can't men?



Of course they can, and do. They may not be able to refuse financially(or now at least) from the court/legal angle. But parenthood is more than financial"obligation".
Until they find the artifical womb, biology will out....pregnancy/childbirth is somethin only women can do. Sadly.

Plus I believe that women have every right to decide for herself, wether or not to have a child. And being forced to abort, OR give birth on the decision of the "father" is anathema to me.








_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 3:08:01 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Women can refuse parenthood. Why can't men?


Men can - keeping zippers closed and their sperm where it is.

No force on earth forces men to become a father.


You lament like an 12 year old no longer getting his nose wiped by mummy - grow up and face adult life.

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 3:34:10 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now.

Men have to wait until birth. Always.


I take it you are against abortion then?

Because biologically speaking, women have also needed to wait until birth. Always.



Since you deleted the first sentece of that quotation which contained the information who "they" are (very poor style indeed) here my original paragraph restored:

"Just to be clear - men have no rights on a pregnancy. Never, nowhere.
They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now."



I doubt you have the slightest ideas about what can happen between the fusion of sperm and egg cell and birth.

Only about two thirds of those eggs adhere to the uterus. The natural cause miscarriage rate (depending on age and medical condition) is up to 50 %. Depending on stage of pregnancy a considerable number of those miscarriages can happen unnoticed.

Women live through a number of stages of pregnancy. I have no intention to teach you biology - get informed before you post more of your nonsense.


(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 4:25:31 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And being forced to abort


Of course women shouldn't be forced to abort. Nobody has said anything about that.




_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 4:30:19 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

Women can refuse parenthood. Why can't men?


Men can - keeping zippers closed and their sperm where it is.



Women can leave their legs shut.

But when they don't, they still have options.

After women have refused to keep their legs shut, and men have refused to keep their sperm in their pants, why is it that only women have any options, choices, and rights?


quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

No force on earth forces men to become a father.



You realize that there are documented cases of women fishing condoms out of the trash (condoms may I remind you which are the ONLY non-invasive birthcontrol available to men) and impregnating themselves with them?

Again, why is it that after a woman has refused to keep her legs shut and a man his sperm in his pants, it's now she and she alone that gets to decide whether he becomes a father or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

You lament like an 12 year old no longer getting his nose wiped by mummy - grow up and face adult life.


Nice attempt at an ad hominem, but I am not a man.


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 4:38:14 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Since you deleted the first sentece of that quotation which contained the information who "they" are (very poor style indeed) here my original paragraph restored:

"Just to be clear - men have no rights on a pregnancy. Never, nowhere.
They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now."



And how exactly does that sentence change anything?

Women have never had any control over their pregnancy either. They got pregnant, they had to wait until birth to do something about it (which historically, biologically meant to commit direct infanticide, abandon the child to die from exposure, or pan it off on somebody else, if it was unwanted).
Just... like... men...

However, now the rules have changed, now women CAN control their pregnancy. They can decide they don't want it and kill the fetus before birth.

Why is it that when women can decide "Oops, got pregnant by accident, don't want the kid, will just abort it" men do not have that same option by signing away their rights before birth?

You keep trowing a bunch of nonsense out there, but you refuse to answer that very simple question.

Why do women who accidentally get pregnant get to decide they don't want the pregnancy, while men who accidentally get a woman pregnant do not get to decide they don't want the pregnancy by signing away their rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

Only about two thirds of those eggs adhere to the uterus. The natural cause miscarriage rate (depending on age and medical condition) is up to 50 %. Depending on stage of pregnancy a considerable number of those miscarriages can happen unnoticed.



As a woman who has gotten pregnant -when faaaaaar too young- while using a (correctly installed) IUD, I can tell you that the fact that most sex does not lead to conception is not really a consolation when it -without intention- does so anyhow.





< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/15/2016 4:42:43 PM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 5:56:43 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1598
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
... while men who accidentally get a woman pregnant do not get to decide they don't want the pregnancy by signing away their rights?


What rights ...?

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 6:16:46 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
... while men who accidentally get a woman pregnant do not get to decide they don't want the pregnancy by signing away their rights?


What rights ...?


Typo.

Duties.

Though rights and duties go hand in hand when it comes to child rearing. Parental rights include the right to see the child, make decision as to its raising (schooling, medical care, activities, punishments, etc) all rights which are abdicated by putting a child up for adoption.

So let me rephrase...

Why do women who accidentally get pregnant get to decide they don't want the parental rights and duties of motherhood (by either resorting to adoption or abortion), while men who accidentally get a woman pregnant do not get to decide they don't want the parental rights and duties of fatherhood and have no option to abdicate them by signing a piece of paper stating as much?

Again, the issue should be easily solved by having both parties actively committing, or declining commitment to the child before birth.

If neither party want the child the woman decides whether she prefers adoption or abortion.
If the mother wants the child, and the father does not, he signs away his ties with the child and she raises it by herself.
If the father wants the child, and the mother does not, and she decides to carry to term for him (out of religious concern or whatever), she signs away her ties with the child and he raises it by himself.

Those two options aren't any different than an adoption (by mutual parental consent), the only difference is that one parents grants full adoption to the other parent and gives up their ties with the child (as with a normal adoption) to the other genetic parent.


< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/15/2016 6:20:56 PM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo ... - 9/15/2016 6:33:19 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
... while men who accidentally get a woman pregnant do not get to decide they don't want the pregnancy by signing away their rights?


What rights ...?


Typo.

Duties.



If neither party want the child the woman decides whether she prefers adoption or abortion.
If the mother wants the child, and the father does not, he signs away his ties with the child and she raises it by herself.
If the father wants the child, and the mother does not, and she decides to carry to term for him (out of religious concern or whatever), she signs away her ties with the child and he raises it



The first problem is if the father wants the child and the mother does not. You kind of blew over it saying "and she decides to carry to term... etc. " In order to give men the right to sign their rights away it would also seem necessary to give men the right to keep their rights. If men have the legal right to keep the child, it now could become a "duty/legal obligation" of the mother to carry the man's baby to full term. This almost makes the woman an object that the man can control (his baby- producing machine)... by law.




< Message edited by tamaka -- 9/15/2016 6:36:58 PM >

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo Kids' Law' punishes women Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109