Gender inequality when it comes to reproductive rights

[MavsSuperFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2i0ulVBVsc

Basically 20 year old female groupie has sex with arian foster and gets pregnant.

She tells foster that she is keeping the baby (unilaterally making a decision to take his money for the next 18 years)

Foster (who is married, hope he got a no fault divorce clause in his pre nup) reacts poorly and tries to pressure her into getting an abortion.

Now I am not going to defend Foster's behaviour. But doesn't anyone else see how blatantly unfair and unequal reproductive laws are in our society?

Why doesn't a man have the right to unilaterally decided to give up the rights and obligations to a child, when women can unilaterally choose to abandon new bornbabies under safe haven laws (basically its an adoption)?

[ace23]

Agreed.

[ace23]

Them fake tears :roll:

[TheReal Kendall]

I somewhat agree with you.

He should just get custody of the kid and that way no child support an he wouldn't have to worry bout this chick sponging money from him

[Nick Young]

women have an easy road through life, as much as they complain that they dont. All they need to do is have a baby or get married to some schmo and they can sit on their ass for the rest of their lives watching X-factor.

[ROCSteady]

It's so funny to me how Arian Foster luvs to portray this image of being the high brow, intellectual, 'deep' athlete then goes and pulls a typical meathead pregnancy scandal.

I don't feel bad about him having to pay a shit load of money for his indiscretion. Most all athletes cheat and shit so that part isn't irregular but IMO you deserve to lose some of your money if you continue the sex somewhat regularly and presumably don't even go the extra mile to prevent pregnancy. Still possible the child isn't his though.

I see what you're saying but I'm not gunna cry injustice for a guy who initiated an affair at TRAINING CAMP of all places (bad timing on his part) and went to extra efforts to continue the fcking in different time zones and make it regular. Maybe this chick was looking to get pregnant but he's not absolved from having to answer the bell when Child Support comes knockin at his door. If this chick is gunna carry his seed for 9 months and seemingly be a single mom, he doesn't deserve to have the matter swept under the rug for his own convenience.

[Real Men Wear Green]

And the idiotic, amoral, and utterly futile crusade continues.

https://www.cwu.edu/wellness/sites/cts.cwu.edu.wellness/files/images/condoms.jpg

Pick one.

[niko]

Because the woman carries the baby in their body, which assumes the risk of carrying a baby and childbirth. (My wife had a pretty serious condition for about a year from the 2nd pregnancy.) The man does not. I've been through two pregnancies. My wife carried a rock around with her and a pool around it to carry the rock. I said reassuring things and bought things. It's a bit easier being the man.

Some of you have very little respect for woman or any clue on being a man if you think that anything that has to do with children is something to ridicule women about. Grow up.

[Akrazotile]

Some families value their children, others commodify them.

As the wealth gap continues to broaden in no small part because of that, we agree to give the government more power (power the founding fathers died to protect) in order to help even things out. Even when WE'RE not the people who had the kid.

It's because we're super smart and liberal and so like, advanced and stuff (and everyones gotta know it!)


God blessss the UUUUUU, S, AAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!


Hey ral men wears green, you're like so super smart and progressive n stuff. can you tell us some more really smart things about how like the evil corporations are stupid and its only fair if the 99% get more relief so they can not let like the stupid corporations make teh money and everything man???

Seriously, you're so intelligent (i know because you're loudly liberal so im sure that means you must be really smart), we need you to educate us dawg!!!!

[Real Men Wear Green]

Starface again? Sad.

[miller-time]

Just don't have sex with women you aren't willing to impregnate. If you can't accept the risk then don't engage in the behavior. Have a wank.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Just don't have sex with women you aren't willing to impregnate. If you can't accept the risk then don't engage in the behavior. Have a wank.
The OP has a major problem with people actually having to be responsible for their own behavior.

[gts]

And the idiotic, amoral, and utterly futile crusade continues.

https://www.cwu.edu/wellness/sites/cts.cwu.edu.wellness/files/images/condoms.jpg

Pick one.

exactly

[niko]

The OP has a major problem with people actually having to be responsible for their own behavior.
And people don't see pregnancy or birth as a hardship for women for some reason. It's baffling. They really are like children, themselves first always. As men. :facepalm

[ace23]

And people don't see pregnancy or birth as a hardship for women for some reason. It's baffling. They really are like children, themselves first always. As men. :facepalm
So you wouldn't spend 9 months slightly handicapped to make 5-10k a month doing nothing for the next 18 years of your life?

[ace23]

I will say after watching the vid I do kinda feel bad for the girl though. "I just want him to love our child like I do" is awfully sad.
It's fake. She's trying to gain sympathy and it's working on you.

[gts]

And people don't see pregnancy or birth as a hardship for women for some reason. It's baffling. They really are like children, themselves first always. As men. :facepalm

Some of the posters on this site are in for a very rude awakening...lol

[ace23]

I don't think my sympathy is going to help her to much kid.
Agreed. :oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

You serious? I mean, it's human nature to have sex. I'd go insane if I didn't have sex with people I'd prefer not to get pregnant. The volume of girls out there I'd have a kid with is not exactly huge.
OP is right. It's weird to give the woman the right to both $ for the child and absolute say over whether to have the kid. Pick one or the other.


Even if you want to bring "thought experiment logic" into this instead of common sense, the woman still wins.

Only two people can make a baby. So if each person gets one vote, how do you split a tie?

Well the woman has more to lose. She can lose her life. The man can only lose money. So her vote is going to be weighted more heavily.

Therefore she's always going to win in a vote head up against a man.


Beyond that, how do you prevent a woman from getting an abortion and then just saying she had a miscarriage? You gonna put surveillance on her 24/7?


The kind of idealism demonstrated by OP and aversion to practicality is exactly what causes so many of the issues our country constantly wastes time debating over en masse.

[97 bulls]

And people don't see pregnancy or birth as a hardship for women for some reason. It's baffling. They really are like children, themselves first always. As men. :facepalm
Let's flip it. What if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't?

[Akrazotile]

Funny when people like miller time, rmwg, niko say things like "hey man, dudes gotta take responsibility!"

These are the exact same people who want the government to slowly subsidize individual responsibility in exchange for centralized power and authority. You think politicians aren't thrilled to make that exchange? They're only 1 of 300,000,000 tax payers. They're 1 of like 600 policy makers.


Do the math you loser ass f@ggots.

[97 bulls]

The problem isn't giving the woman the right to make the choice. Its the right to make the choice and then monetizing the child on top of it.
This is true.

[niko]

So you wouldn't spend 9 months slightly handicapped to make 5-10k a month doing nothing for the next 18 years of your life?
Do you think a groupie looking for a payday is a good example to use to take away woman's rights?

You can't have a baby. You can't say "if i could be pregnant", you can't. You're not a woman. Apparently a lot of you are not men either, but you are not women.

[Just2McFly]

because condoms are bulletproof and and whatever niko said makes sense. some people are just so high and mighty like shit couldn't have happened to them. smh.


child support for the rich is borderline extortion and it should be capped. there is no way child support should be enough for people to live an extravagant life off of it.

[Real Men Wear Green]

because condoms are bulletproof
No, just a 98% success rate. :rolleyes:

If you don't use protection and you have a baby you have a responsibility. If you aren't capable of handling that, don't do things that get women pregnant. It really is that simple.

[97 bulls]

because condoms are bulletproof and and whatever niko said makes sense. some people are just so high and mighty like shit couldn't have happened to them. smh.


child support for the rich is borderline extortion and it should be capped. there is no way child support should be enough for people to live an extravagant life off of it.
I remember the Rae Carruth trial. Someone made mention that he was paying his other childs mother 15 thousand dollars a month. But his child shared a bedroom with his half-sibling. The mother didn't work, her boyfriend didnt either. But they both drove expensive cars and lived lavish lifestyles.

The way the system is set up is unfair to men. I have a friend that is still obligated to pay child support for a child he found out wasnt his. And he has no legal recourse. Women are just as responsible for getting pregnant as the men that impregnate them.

[ROCSteady]

Arian Foster punked himself. He most likely let his urges translate into a shit show public scandal. Even as a man, I'm not gunna cry foul for his extended poor judgment. Dude's a millionaire, reap what u sow for goin hunting for snow bunnies

[97 bulls]

No, just a 98% success rate. :rolleyes:

If you don't use protection and you have a baby you have a responsibility. If you aren't capable of handling that, don't do things that get women pregnant. It really is that simple.
So what culpability does the woman have?

[Real Men Wear Green]

So what culpability does the woman have?
The same as the man. What's your point? Really, you don't have one. Nature has made it so that only one sex can get pregnant. The law will never absolve men of their responsibility in that situation, as your poor Rae Carruth knows.

[97 bulls]

The same as the man. What's your point? Really, you don't have one. Nature has made it so that only one sex can get pregnant. The law will never absolve men of their responsibility in that situation, as your poor Rae Carruth knows.
Its not a point. Its a question. You are blaming the man for the irresponsibility of two people. Why?

And your not arguing thats its because of the laws of the land, youre arguing based on a moral issue. The way women are treated in the middle east is atrocious. But its the law. Does that make it right?

Im not arguing for the plight of Rae Carruth. What I am saying is that your stance is the reason a women died at the hands of him.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's actually 80-85% or something.
98% when used correctly. (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/condom-use-101-basic-errors-are-so-common-study-finds-207925)
Of course, with some of the things we see written in this thread it would not surprise me if a sizable portion of the population is not using them correctly.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Its not a point. Its a question. You are blaming the man for the irresponsibility of two people. Why? Because he's responsible. The woman is as well. And?


And your not arguing thats its because of the laws of the land, youre arguing based on a moral issue. The way women are treated in the middle east is atrocious. But its the law. Does that make it right?I'm fully capable of pointing out both that a man that abandons a woman with his child is lacking a moral core as well as pointing out that our laws will never take your side.


Im not arguing for the plight of Rae Carruth. What I am saying is that your stance is the reason a women died at the hands of him.
Then you're an idiot.

[97 bulls]

This is probably the most ****ed up thing I've heard about on this subject. Idk how that hasnt been changed yet.
Preach brotha. But then men are looked down upon if they demand a paternity test. Men can't win in this situation

[gts]

The way the system is set up is unfair to men. I have a friend that is still obligated to pay child support for a child he found out wasnt his. And he has no legal recourse. Women are just as responsible for getting pregnant as the men that impregnate them.

If he can prove via paternity test that the child is not his he has no responsibility for the child

And yes women are responsible, they're the one that will be taking care of the child the next 16 plus years

[Real Men Wear Green]

Idk how you can **** up using condoms, but regardless the real failure rate is 18%. I just looked it up. A theoretical number is pretty much useless.
It shows what happens when they're used correctly. Just because you're more likely to crash when you drive drunk doesn't mean the car is flawed.

[97 bulls]

Because he's responsible. The woman is as well. And?
I'm fully capable of pointing out both that a man that abandons a woman with his child is lacking a moral core as well as pointing out that our laws will never take your side.


Then you're an idiot.
No ones arguing the laws of the land. Including you. What you doing is backpedaling. Your original argument was that of a moral issue. Not what the law is. And in typical fashion, when a leftists has no viable argument left, return an insult. Nice job :applause: :applause:

[Real Men Wear Green]

Drunk driving is counted in accident statistics.
And I highly doubt it's really 98% with condom breaks.
You're really arguing with the World Health Organization? They conducted a study and found that the failure rate was 2% when the condom was used right. And just to defend my precious analogy, drunk driving would be flawed condom use.

[97 bulls]

If he can prove via paternity test that the child is not his he has no responsibility for the child

And yes women are responsible, they're the one that will be taking care of the child the next 16 plus years
Not true. Once a man signs his name on the birth certificate, he is legally binded to that obligation. A birth certificate is a legally binding contract. Even if he finds out that the child he believed go be his isn't, he is still obligated to pay for that child.

[KingBeasley08]

There should be something done about child support. There should be some money given to the women but not as much as they get

[Real Men Wear Green]

No ones arguing the laws of the land. Including you. What you doing is backpedaling. Your original argument was that of a moral issue. And now you can't read. Where did I backpedal? I am still saying it's immoral. Highly immoral. You aren't making any sense. I am saying it's both illegal and immoral. That's not a contradiction. You need to read a book.
Not what the law is. And in typical fashion, when a leftists has no viable argument left, return an insult. Nice job :applause: :applause:
Blaming Carruth's evil on my stance is insulting and stupid as an added benefit. Also, your politics are off. A Republican as far too the right as he or she could possibly be would disagree with you as well. The Right doesn't favor abortion. You did know that, didn't you?

[gts]

Not true. Once a man signs his name on the birth certificate, he is legally binded to that obligation. A birth certificate is a legally binding contract. Even if he finds out that the child he believed go be his isn't, he is still obligated to pay for that child.

!00% untrue.. sounds like your buddy is selling you a bill of goods.. only way he is stuck is if at birth he agreed in writing to be the legal guardian of the child despite knowing he's not the father

If he can prove the child is not his even after he's signed any paperwork he is not responsible and can avoid paying child support...

[Real Men Wear Green]

Until I see how they came to that conclusion I don't really believe it, no.
Well, I don't have any videotape to show you of failed/successful condom use from the studies so we'll just have to leave it there.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I'm pretty sure you know thats not what I meant.
Sure. But I don't see what's to be done about it. You don't trust the World Health Organization? Fine. There's really nothing I can do about that, that's your issue.

[97 bulls]

And now you can't read. Where did I backpedal? I am still saying it's immoral. Highly immoral. You aren't making any sense. I am saying it's both illegal and immoral. That's not a contradiction. You need to read a book.
Blaming Carruth's evil on my stance is insulting and stupid as an added benefit. Also, your politics are off. A Republican as far too the right as he or she could possibly be would disagree with you as well. The Right doesn't favor abortion. You did know that, didn't you?
I've explained this now threes times. Your first few posts were centered around total culpability of the man. When I checked you, you changed from a moral compass to a legal one. I'm not arguing the law bro. Im arguing irresponsibility of TWO people. Not just the man. Foster should help support his children. Even more important is help raise them. But to totally blame him for the act of two people? The woman isn't married to him. We assume they didn't use any kind of birth control. She knows the ramifications of her actions as well.

The only person that truly suffers in this situation is the child. And that due to the selfishness of the father and mother.

[Akrazotile]

The problem isn't giving the woman the right to make the choice. Its the right to make the choice and then monetizing the child on top of it.


No, because men can skip town and face no consequences. If a woman leaves her child at Target and peaces out, shes arrested

Thats how it works. If there is a split in the relationship, women must raise the child and the man must pay for it.


Having a child is a much more signficiant decision for a woman than a man, both medically and emotionally. If you plant the seed, accept the consequences.

[Draz]

She's not that bad looking either I wouldn't of pulled out myself :lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

I've explained this now threes times. Your first few posts were centered around total culpability of the man. When I checked you, you changed from a moral compass to a legal one.Quote me. Please. My first post was a picture of some prophylactics. You're arguing with the voices in your head. And losing, at that.

[Akrazotile]

Women (and men probably) can leave their children at hospitals to be adopted in most states.
And if men skip town they still have to pay.


Tbh I dont know the specifics of how adoption works. Does make me wonder tho if both parents just leave a child at the hospital if they are absolved of all financial obligation. If they are, I honestly just might kill someone.

[gts]

I'm pretty sure that's how it works, yeah.In Cali a woman can go to a police station a fire station or hospital and leave the child, no questions asked the catch is there's a time frame, it basically has to be a newborn, few days old... The father can be there but the father cannot drop off the child alone, there will be questions like where's the mom?

Can't drop your 1 year old off and tell them this isn't working for me...lol

you have to go through child services otherwise....

[COnDEMnED]

And the idiotic, amoral, and utterly futile crusade continues.

https://www.cwu.edu/wellness/sites/cts.cwu.edu.wellness/files/images/condoms.jpg

Pick one.
Condoms are no guarantee and some women are schemers. Pin hole punctures at the tip? I've seen it

[gts]

Condoms are no guarantee and some women are schemers. Pin hole punctures at the tip? I've seen it

it's really simple, condoms are not 100%, some women are schemers that's why

IF YOU ARE NOT READY TO BE A FATHER OR HAVE THE STATE CONSIDER YOU ONE DO NOT HAVE SEX

Think with your head and not your dick

[COnDEMnED]

it's really simple, condoms are not 100%, some women are schemers that's why

IF YOU ARE NOT READY TO BE A FATHER OR HAVE THE STATE CONSIDER YOU ONE DO NOT HAVE SEX

Think with your head and not your dick
Hence, I have no children nor did I get dragged into a shit marriage because some religions basically demand it when shit hits the fan. I truly am blessed. Some, not so lucky. I feel bad for some Dads who flushed their future and dreams down a ****** all because he was too dumb to protect himself.

Marriage and kids in this day and age? It's for the birds.

edit: the word starting with a V and ending in gina is censored but not the word shit? Is this a liberal forum?

[longhornfan1234]

The OP has a major problem with people actually having to be responsible for their own behavior.


That's why he's a liberal.

[Just2McFly]

No, just a 98% success rate. :rolleyes:

If you don't use protection and you have a baby you have a responsibility. If you aren't capable of handling that, don't do things that get women pregnant. It really is that simple.

This kind of "logic" is mind boggling.

[97 bulls]

Real Men Wear Green
Quote me. Please.


I'm fully capable of pointing out both that a man that abandons a woman with his child is lacking a moral core as well as pointing out that our laws will never take your side.
You aren't blaming the man here?


If you don't use protection and you have a baby you have a responsibility. If you aren't capable of handling that, don't do things that get women pregnant.*
Or here?


=Real Men Wear Green]Quote me. Please. My first post was a picture of some prophylactics. You're arguing with the voices in your head. And losing, at that.
That picture you posted was to show agreement for another post blaming Foster.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's actually 80-85% or something.

For "typical use".

98% range is "perfect use".

[AintNoSunshine]

They gotta carry a baby inside their womb for 10 months and gotta shiit it out via their genital, how is that fair either? It's a stupid discussion to start in the first place.

[97 bulls]

They gotta carry a baby inside their womb for 10 months and gotta shiit it out via their genital, how is that fair either? It's a stupid discussion to start in the first place.
What was she tricked? Stop having unprotected sex with men that aren't your husband. When are we gonna start holding adults accountable for their decisions? Why would a woman take the chance of being impregnated by a man without knowing if hes responsible enough and willing to help raise that child?

[Akrazotile]

Being ready to become a responsible parent is not going to stop young people from having sex. As a society, we simply need to make sure we put pressure on them to GET ready, if/when they find themselves in that situation.

Accidents happen. Can happen to anyone. "Whoops it was an accident" doesn't excuse anyone from THEN taking the responsibility for it.


You get 9 months until the baby arrives. Adjust yo self accordingly. And don't encourage your government to cover for people who refuse to at the expense of everyone else. People who owe child support shouldn't simply have their license's revoked, they should be put in damn labor camps. Earn back some of that money they cost everyone else.

[97 bulls]

This would result is me never getting laid
Or. It forces you to be responsible if you really want to be with her.

[miller-time]

You serious? I mean, it's human nature to have sex. I'd go insane if I didn't have sex with people I'd prefer not to get pregnant. The volume of girls out there I'd have a kid with is not exactly huge.
OP is right. It's weird to give the woman the right to both $ for the child and absolute say over whether to have the kid. Pick one or the other.

It is partly human nature to want to have sex. It is also human to plan ahead and understand the consequences to our actions. I've had a few close calls when I was younger and even though nothing happened they scared me enough to change my behavior.

[Akrazotile]

I've had a few close calls when I was younger and even though nothing happened they scared me enough to change my behavior.


Really???

I thought you were gay.

[AintNoSunshine]

What was she tricked? Stop having unprotected sex with men that aren't your husband. When are we gonna start holding adults accountable for their decisions? Why would a woman take the chance of being impregnated by a man without knowing if hes responsible enough and willing to help raise that child?

WTF? How does fukk do you know for sure if another person will be responsible forever? Women can make this mistake of misevaluation and end up with a baby in her body where men can make the same mistake but walk away like nothing happened. That's another discussion but I'm trying to say the whole debate of the OP is stupid as fukk.

[chosen_one6]

The OP is a fcuking idiot.

[97 bulls]

WTF? How does fukk do you know for sure if another person will be responsible forever? Women can make this mistake of misevaluation and end up with a baby in her body where men can make the same mistake but walk away like nothing happened. That's another discussion but I'm trying to say the whole debate of the OP is stupid as fukk.
We don't. Nobody does. But the answer isnt or shouldn't, be to protect the womans irresponsibility. And even more reward it.

I remember my wifes doctor having a conversation with us when she was pregnant. He said that for 9-10 months, that body belongs to baby. The baby gets everything it needs to survive before the mother does. If a mother decides to starve herself, she will suffer before the baby does. The assumption that a pregnant womans body is hers is just not true. Other than the fact that she has the option to kill it. Which isnt natural.

[Rodmantheman]

The OP is a fcuking idiot.

:oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

:oldlol:


Dude I remember during the OJ Simpson fiasco there were stories about how he'd grab his wife's crotch in public and proclaim "This is where babies come from! It belongs to ME!"


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol :oldlol: :cry:



Shit still brings tears of laughter to my eyes just picturing that ever happening anywhere.

[Jameerthefear]

We don't. Nobody does. But the answer isnt or shouldn't, be to protect the womans irresponsibility. And even more reward it.

I remember my wifes doctor having a conversation with us when she was pregnant. He said that for 9-10 months, that body belongs to baby. The baby gets everything it needs to survive before the mother does. If a mother decides to starve herself, she will suffer before the baby does. The assumption that a pregnant womans body is hers is just not true. Other than the fact that she has the option to kill it. Which isnt natural.
http://i.imgur.com/f5SaJOm.gif

[97 bulls]

:oldlol:
Laughing doesn't change facts. The body operates for the purpose of the baby FIRST. Then the mother.

[Akrazotile]

Laughing doesn't change facts. The body operates for the purpose of the baby FIRST. Then the mother.


Is it like one of these deals?


http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/09/Ninja-Turtles-Classics-Krang-Shredder.jpg

[97 bulls]

It's not even an abortion thing.

Don't ever say "your body isn't yours" it hurts your argument. Women/human's don't like hearing that. It's offensive.
My wife understood the doctors point. The baby gets all the nourishment it needs FIRST. And the woman has no say in that. So when a woman says its her body, thats not true. Im by no means saying its the mans, but the baby's.

[97 bulls]

Is it like one of these deals?


http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/09/Ninja-Turtles-Classics-Krang-Shredder.jpg
Lol. No

[NuggetsFan]

Because the woman carries the baby in their body, which assumes the risk of carrying a baby and childbirth. (My wife had a pretty serious condition for about a year from the 2nd pregnancy.) The man does not. I've been through two pregnancies. My wife carried a rock around with her and a pool around it to carry the rock. I said reassuring things and bought things. It's a bit easier being the man.

Some of you have very little respect for woman or any clue on being a man if you think that anything that has to do with children is something to ridicule women about. Grow up.

I have no idea why people always try to shove there personal situations somewhere where it doesn't belong. So your wife got preggo and had health problems, I'm assuming your not a millionaire? Assuming it wasn't a mistake that your going to have to pay for the rest of your life? .. cause that's the issue. When a random girl get knocked up and than ends up getting her lifestyle paid for. Focus should be on the kid, just because she carries a baby doesn't mean she's entitled to new dresses and shoes :oldlol: thread wouldn't exist if everybody was husband and wife and every women was sane. Girls out there who literally poke holes in condoms. For every asshole who runs away from responsibility there's a crazy girl who said she was on the pill.

Any clue about women? Growing up? Hardly. Both the male and female in a situation like are to blame, BOTH not just the man. She's crying about being alone during ultra sounds? Don't sleep with a married NFL player. Pretty simple. Foster? What he's doing is wrong. Her body, her choice. Shoulda avoided her and realized the massive target that's on your back.

Sucks for the kid. That's where people's sympathy should go to, not her.

[NuggetsFan]

:oldlol:

Broad wouldn't be on channel 9 right now if I had fcked her. She probably be on her way to the clinic :lol

[ace23]

I have no idea why people always try to shove there personal situations somewhere where it doesn't belong. So your wife got preggo and had health problems, I'm assuming your not a millionaire? Assuming it wasn't a mistake that your going to have to pay for the rest of your life? .. cause that's the issue. When a random girl get knocked up and than ends up getting her lifestyle paid for. Focus should be on the kid, just because she carries a baby doesn't mean she's entitled to new dresses and shoes :oldlol: thread wouldn't exist if everybody was husband and wife and every women was sane. Girls out there who literally poke holes in condoms. For every asshole who runs away from responsibility there's a crazy girl who said she was on the pill.

Any clue about women? Growing up? Hardly. Both the male and female in a situation like are to blame, BOTH not just the man. She's crying about being alone during ultra sounds? Don't sleep with a married NFL player. Pretty simple. Foster? What he's doing is wrong. Her body, her choice. Shoulda avoided her and realized the massive target that's on your back.

Sucks for the kid. That's where people's sympathy should go to, not her.

:applause:

Future repped.

[NuggetsFan]

It's a lot easier to not fvk you then a rich famous professional athlete


...no offense

Ain't that the truth. If you want somebody with you at your ultra sound than I wouldn't suggest banging a famous athlete tho.

[NuggetsFan]

Like you would say no in the same situation

Well maybe you would I don't know you, but most people would fvk arian foster

:oldlol:

[Real Men Wear Green]

You aren't blaming the man here?


Or here?


That picture you posted was to show agreement for another post blaming Foster.
Are you literate? Nowhere do you show me saying the woman has no responsibility. Just because I am pointing out that a man is responsible for what he does doesn't mean I'm saying a woman isn't. I don't know what's so hard for you to understand.

[MavsSuperFan]

The OP has a major problem with people actually having to be responsible for their own behavior.
No, I have a problem with blatant discrimination and double standards under the law.

I fully support the right of a woman to choose. Never once in my life have I denied a woman the right to choose. The Choice of whether to abort the fetus or not should be completely up to the woman.

However no person should be able to unilaterally take money from another person.

Further there's a difference between the choice of abortion and the choice of when to become apparent. There are several reasons for our society allowing for Safehaven laws. Women are allowed to choose when to become a parent because this is what's best for them and for the child.

Becoming a parent before you are ready limits you ability to complete an education, future employment prospects and financial prosperity. More importantly the child is greatly handicapped if it's parents aren't prepared or don't want it.

We allow women to abandon an unwanted child through the adoption process because it is best for the child to be raised by parents who want it and are prepared. Men should be given the same choice.

Many of you are overestimating how many men would choose to not be fathers. Most men look forward to being fathers. I know I do.


It's so funny to me how Arian Foster luvs to portray this image of being the high brow, intellectual, 'deep' athlete then goes and pulls a typical meathead pregnancy scandal.

I don't feel bad about him having to pay a shit load of money for his indiscretion. Most all athletes cheat and shit so that part isn't irregular but IMO you deserve to lose some of your money if you continue the sex somewhat regularly and presumably don't even go the extra mile to prevent pregnancy. Still possible the child isn't his though.

I see what you're saying but I'm not gunna cry injustice for a guy who initiated an affair at TRAINING CAMP of all places (bad timing on his part) and went to extra efforts to continue the fcking in different time zones and make it regular. Maybe this chick was looking to get pregnant but he's not absolved from having to answer the bell when Child Support comes knockin at his door. If this chick is gunna carry his seed for 9 months and seemingly be a single mom, he doesn't deserve to have the matter swept under the rug for his own convenience.
Foster is irrelevant. My point is the double standard/inequality under the law.
Further, this may be the cynic in me but I don't believe she would have chosen to not take birth control or keep the kid if foster was poor.

[MavsSuperFan]

If he can prove via paternity test that the child is not his he has no responsibility for the child

And yes women are responsible, they're the one that will be taking care of the child the next 16 plus years
:lol :lol you are obviously not familiar with how strictly child support is enforced or how hard it is to get it adjusted. There are tons do dudes forced to pay child support for kids proven by DNA tests are not biologically theirs.

[BrownEye007]

[QUOTE=Jchild support for the rich is borderline extortion and it should be capped. there is no way child support should be enough for people to live an extravagant life off of it.[/QUOTE]

IMO the only problem with the child support system is that even if the man wants to be involved with the kid the mother can tell him no and take his money anyway. Guys should only have to pay if they choose not to be involved.

[fiddy]

And the idiotic, amoral, and utterly futile crusade continues.

https://www.cwu.edu/wellness/sites/cts.cwu.edu.wellness/files/images/condoms.jpg

Pick one.
id rather pull out, regardless how hard it is sometimes

[Solidape]

And the idiotic, amoral, and utterly futile crusade continues.

https://www.cwu.edu/wellness/sites/cts.cwu.edu.wellness/files/images/condoms.jpg

Pick one.


Kinda don't have sympathy for the dude, he knows that there are women out there waiting to get paid and he still banged her without the rubber.

History lessons are lost so he becomes yet another sucker, gonna be paying for a long time to come.

[Balla_Status]

If feminists argue that it's her body and that men should have no choice in the matter, then they shouldn't cry about men not paying child support.

Feminists drive the wedge between men and women.

[lucky001]

id rather pull out, regardless how hard it is sometimes

Surprisingly good at preventing conception, but obviously useless against STDs. Wrap it before you tap it fellas.

[JohnFreeman]

Women want to be equal, make all laws equal. She wants a divorce but can still get money and child support? get the f*ck outta here

[IamRAMBO24]

I've had this argument before and there are a few logical fallacies in it that makes it seem like it sounds reasonable when it's really not

1. Responsibility.

First, the assumption the man has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby is a misconception. He doesn't have a right purely because it is a woman's body. She does whatever she wants with it. If she wants to have a kid, it is her right to do so. Mavs thinks the choice of an abortion should not be entirely up to the woman. This is an incredibly faulty line of thinking. Since it is her body, she should have the choice. The man is not carrying the baby; it is not his body, thus he cannot dictate what happens to the baby. Now whether or not he should be forced to pay child support is an entirely different argument, so let's stick with Mavs argument the man should have the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

2. It is her body.

The body argument is pretty clear cut. What you do with your body is entirely up to you. The idea someone else can dictate what you do with it is incredibly absurd and should not be taken seriously.

3. If a man is not ready to have a child, then he should have a choice whether or not to keep the baby.

We've already established it is her body, and by definition, we can all agree the man has no choice in this matter, so you can see the contradiction based on the definition of "choice." The only choice he could of made is to not wear a condom; saying that he should have a choice for an abortion is a fallacious argument because it contradicts the rights of the woman's body.

Mavs has failed to define what "choice" truly is, thus his entire argument is incredibly flawed.

[Jailblazers7]

This discussion is probably 20-30 years too early. Are we really going to expect men to have the option of avoiding financial responsibility for a child in a society where women are just now starting to close the wage gap? The law is something that evolves over time and changing the philosophy behind parental responsibility is going to take forever.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a society that was overwhelmingly male dominated (and still is to some degree). Social norms dictating high standard of male responsibility before the law is a result of hundreds of years of sociological factors.

And I doubt it ever changes tbh. There is a distinction between abortion and abandonment because an abortion is the end of the situation while abandonment has pretty dramatic affects in the long-term. If the father walks away, then there is still a child to raise who now lives in a single parent family.

[97 bulls]

This discussion is probably 20-30 years too early. Are we really going to expect men to have the option of avoiding financial responsibility for a child in a society where women are just now starting to close the wage gap? The law is something that evolves over time and changing the philosophy behind parental responsibility is going to take forever.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a society that was overwhelmingly male dominated (and still is to some degree). Social norms dictating high standard of male responsibility before the law is a result of hundreds of years of sociological factors.

And I doubt it ever changes tbh. There is a distinction between abortion and abandonment because an abortion is the end of the situation while abandonment has pretty dramatic affects in the long-term. If the father walks away, then there is still a child to raise who now lives in a single parent family.
Id have to disagree to an extent. Theres inequality on both sides. This particular topic is drastically favorable to women.

Inequalities that favor men are wages (like you stated) and that gap is closing. Sex is another inequality that favors men. The more women a man beds, the more hes respected. On the flip side, women who are promiscuous are looked at as scum (whores).

An inequality that favors women is spousal abuse. A woman can and has been able to attack her mate with little to no recourse. If a man does it, hes looked at as lower than life. What if Tiger Woods was the one bashing out his wifes cars windows with a golf club and chasing her with the intent to do harm?

Back to the topic. While I agree that the woman ultimately has the right now to chose what happens to her body. I feel she gives up that right when she opens her legs and allows a man to impregnate her. That child is just as much a part of that man as it is the woman. Similarly, if a man does not want a child, its his job to take the proper precautions if and when he decides to have sex with a woman. I have no sympathy for men that blame women for pregnancy by saying such things as "you told me you were on the pill".

[ROCSteady]

Foster is irrelevant. My point is the double standard/inequality under the law.
Further, this may be the cynic in me but I don't believe she would have chosen to not take birth control or keep the kid if foster was poor.

Well then the example you chose to illustrate your feelings of injustice is a poor one. If you want to make some political equality thread when it comes to genders and the rest of society's ability for men to have a more active role in the decision process, chose an everyday story of regular people to better illustrate your point.

Situations like this are fluid with many many dynamics as to how and prescribe the 'right' or 'moral' course of action. Just as you wish for the avoidance of a woman having get the father's future income unilaterally, there are also circumstances where men make a mistake or even several, have no desire or sacrifice to provide their estranged children basic needs and financial support.

Women are basically unable to work proper hours for sole support from the time they are very pregnant to quite a bit of time after the baby is born. It's not right to expect a single mom to go work full time 3-4 months after the infant is born. New babies need a lot of care and the other options simply aren't adequate.

Trying to establish full fledged, set in stone guidelines and proper protocol for these cases is naive and ignorant. As far as the abortion option, many women don't see that as a possibility, regardless of their personal level of security. Once their bodies are the ones compromised and they are willing to incubate an imminent life, most (including family and outside parties) will fight for sort of sacrifice from the other willing party, in that case men.... and a portion of their paychecks.

[IamRAMBO24]

Back to the topic. While I agree that the woman ultimately has the right now to chose what happens to her body. I feel she gives up that right when she opens her legs and allows a man to impregnate her. That child is just as much a part of that man as it is the woman. Similarly, if a man does not want a child, its his job to take the proper precautions if and when he decides to have sex with a woman. I have no sympathy for men that blame women for pregnancy by saying such things as "you told me you were on the pill".

Your logic is once a woman opens her legs, she no longer has a right over her body?

Think about that for a second.

[ROCSteady]

If feminists argue that it's her body and that men should have no choice in the matter, then they shouldn't cry about men not paying child support.

Feminists drive the wedge between men and women.

This post sounds like a 15 year old wrote it. C'mon dude you're sharper than that.

These situations shouldn't be regulated to some kind of gender war. Women vs. Men. Feminists vs. Traditionalists.

If it were that cut and dry, those opposing parties and genders wouldn't choose to shack up and get their nut off in the first place.

Making it a personal or gender battle is just divisive and will make it hard for ANY of the parties to come out of the situation with any optimism or clarity. Most notably, a potential new life who would get caught in an ugly situation just from existing if all looked at matters so pridefully and with lines drawn like the way you obviously think.

[97 bulls]

Are you literate? Nowhere do you show me saying the woman has no responsibility. Just because I am pointing out that a man is responsible for what he does doesn't mean I'm saying a woman isn't. I don't know what's so hard for you to understand.
Come Green. Where both adults. Let's be mature about this. What we have is a scenario in which two people made a foolish mistake and you only made mention on the guys responsibility. Thats wrong.

Im not saying or implying that Foster shouldn't have to own up and take responsibility, im just saying she's just as dumb and irresponsible as Foster. Why allow yourself to be impregnated by a man that doesnt want you or the baby?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Come Green. Where both adults. Let's be mature about this. What we have is a scenario in which two people made a foolish mistake and you only made mention on the guys responsibility. Thats wrong.
You're just having a hard time dealing with the fact that you're wrong. You don't get to make assumptions based on nothing and then argue with them as if I said them. Doesn't work that way. Move on.

[MavsSuperFan]

I've had this argument before and there are a few logical fallacies in it that makes it seem like it sounds reasonable when it's really not

1. Responsibility.

First, the assumption the man has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby is a misconception. He doesn't have a right purely because it is a woman's body. She does whatever she wants with it. If she wants to have a kid, it is her right to do so. Mavs thinks the choice of an abortion should not be entirely up to the woman. This is an incredibly faulty line of thinking. Since it is her body, she should have the choice. The man is not carrying the baby; it is not his body, thus he cannot dictate what happens to the baby. Now whether or not he should be forced to pay child support is an entirely different argument, so let's stick with Mavs argument the man should have the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

2. It is her body.

The body argument is pretty clear cut. What you do with your body is entirely up to you. The idea someone else can dictate what you do with it is incredibly absurd and should not be taken seriously.

3. If a man is not ready to have a child, then he should have a choice whether or not to keep the baby.

We've already established it is her body, and by definition, we can all agree the man has no choice in this matter, so you can see the contradiction based on the definition of "choice." The only choice he could of made is to not wear a condom; saying that he should have a choice for an abortion is a fallacious argument because it contradicts the rights of the woman's body.

Mavs has failed to define what "choice" truly is, thus his entire argument is incredibly flawed.


First, the assumption the man has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby is a misconception. He doesn't have a right purely because it is a woman's body. She does whatever she wants with it. If she wants to have a kid, it is her right to do so.

Completely agree.


Mavs thinks the choice of an abortion should not be entirely up to the woman.

You are either lying or you have misinterpreted what i have written. Women should make 100% of the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I have NEVER stated otherwise.


This is an incredibly faulty line of thinking. Since it is her body, she should have the choice.

You are just making stuff up I have never said that.


Now whether or not he should be forced to pay child support is an entirely different argument, so let's stick with Mavs argument the man should have the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

The bolded part is my argument. the rest i have never claimed

[97 bulls]

Your logic is once a woman opens her legs, she no longer has a right over her body?

Think about that for a second.
Yes lets think about it. Im not saying once a man impregnates a woman, she becomes his property. Im saying she shouldn't have the right to kill the baby. She knew the chances she was taking when she had sex.

Let's take it a step further. Why not allow everyone to make decisions for their own life? Why not allow minors to drink and smoke? Its their body right? Why not allow them to get married? Its their life?

If your too irresponsible to take the precautions needed to insure you wont impregnate or be impregnated, you don't deserve to be able to make that decision.

[IamRAMBO24]

Completely agree.



You are either lying or you have misinterpreted what i have written. Women should make 100% of the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I have NEVER stated otherwise.



You are just making stuff up I have never said that.


The bolded part is my argument. the rest i have never claimed

Your argument is flawed and you know it.

You said the man should have the right to decide what a woman does to her body. Did you not say that? Do I need to quote you?

[97 bulls]

You're just having a hard time dealing with the fact that you're wrong. You don't get to make assumptions based on nothing and then argue with them as if I said them. Doesn't work that way. Move on.
Wrong? About what? You stated the man should've wore a condom. A condom is a form of birth control men use. Why not show a picture of birth control pills? Or a diaphram? Or the morning after pill? You plainly alluded to his role in this irresponsible act. All I asked is why are you chastising on side when both sides equally Fd up?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Completely agree.



You are either lying or you have misinterpreted what i have written. Women should make 100% of the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I have NEVER stated otherwise.



You are just making stuff up I have never said that.


The bolded part is my argument. the rest i have never claimed
If the man is allowed to opt out of responsibility for the child you are not really giving the woman complete control over whether or not she has the baby. She has to factor the lack of support from the man into her decision. Your thinking lacks any kind of appreciation for how difficult that is. Fortunately we live in a society that isn't so completely amoral.

[-p.tiddy-]

2. It is her body.

The body argument is pretty clear cut. What you do with your body is entirely up to you. The idea someone else can dictate what you do with it is incredibly absurd and should not be taken seriously.

this

if it was me having to give birth then I sure as fck wouldn't want anyone telling me what to do but me...

watching my wife have my son really opened my eyes to just how amazingly difficult it is to give birth...it's really really really hard work, and it is from the get go too, their body makes them tired, forces them to rest, hormones start going nuts, etc

and then after they give birth it isn't over for them...they still have to breast feed/pump...and that shit SUUUUUCKS...they don't get the chance to sleep, they have to pull out a boob if the baby starts crying no matter where they are...it's awful


I thank God every day of my life that I am male :lol

[Real Men Wear Green]

Wrong? About what? You stated the man should've wore a condom. A condom is a form of birth control men use. Why not show a picture of birth control pills? Or a diaphram? Or the morning after pill? You plainly alluded to his role in this irresponsible act. All I asked is why are you chastising on side when both sides equally Fd up?
Would you stop throwing your stupidity in my face? I'm tired of looking at it. If I say Durant played great in an OKC win does that mean I'm saying Westbrook had nothing to do with it? If I complain that the House isn't able to strike a deal does that mean the Senate or President have no culpability? You are excissively whining just because I didn't say "both sides are responsible" in the first post. Especially seeing as I said the woman is also responsible long ago. Really the responsibility of women is something I would have thought obvious as they're normally the single parent when one of the two parents decides to bail. You have no point. Go look at a diaphragm if it makes you happy.

[MavsSuperFan]

Your argument is flawed and you know it.

You said the man should have the right to decide what a woman does to her body. Did you not say that? Do I need to quote you?
Yes you do I have never said that. I think women should have the full choice of abortion.

Men should be allowed to give up rights and responsibilities to the child through an adoption like process

[97 bulls]

If the man is allowed to opt out of responsibility for the child you are not really giving the woman complete control over whether or not she has the baby. She has to factor the lack of support from the man into her decision. Your thinking lacks any kind of appreciation for how difficult that is. Fortunately we live in a society that isn't so completely amoral.
You totally missed the point. Why should the man be legally required to finance a baby he doesn't want when a woman can basically drop her child off at a hospital or fire station with no questions asked? Which is essentially abandoning the child.

[MJ23forever]

Men have virtually no reproductive or parental rights.

- A woman can name any man she likes as the father of her baby, he will get a letter in the mail, if he does not prove that he is not the father within 30 days

[Real Men Wear Green]

You totally missed the point. Why should the man be legally required to finance a baby he doesn't want when a woman can basically drop her child off at a hospital or fire station with no questions asked? Which is essentially abandoning the child.
Mavs wrote:
Women should make 100% of the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I have NEVER stated otherwise.So I point out that a woman dealing with an absentee mate has to consider that when making her decision. I did not miss the point you just have yet again failed to understand basic English.

Not even in the mood to start on your wonderful solution of abandoning babies at fire hydrants. (Intentional misinterpretation there, letting you know because you seem a little slow even when I write plainly).

[Jailblazers7]

Question for the guys supporting this:

Would it also be ok for women to walk away from the financial burden? The woman has the child, hands it over to the guy, and walks away. The guy now becomes the single parent who shoulders the entire financial burden.

[97 bulls]

Would you stop throwing your stupidity in my face? I'm tired of looking at it. If I say Durant played great in an OKC win does that mean I'm saying Westbrook had nothing to do with it? If I complain that the House isn't able to strike a deal does that mean the Senate or President have no culpability? You are excissively whining just because I didn't say "both sides are responsible" in the first post. Especially seeing as I said the woman is also responsible long ago. Really the responsibility of women is something I would have thought obvious as they're normally the single parent when one of the two parents decides to bail. You have no point. Go look at a diaphragm if it makes you happy.
No. Thats a bad analogy. First were talking about TWO people. Not one. What youre essentially doing is in you Durant example is only discussing Durants game. Not the team. Now if both Durant and Westbrook had 40/7/8 games and played exactly the same on defense and you only credit Durant for the win, then that would be a problem.

Another example two people rob a bank but you only want to prosecute one of them.

You need to get off your high horse. The original post was centered on gender inequality. Not the laws of the land. You make yourself look bad when you sling insults and question my intelligence based on my opinion. As if yours holds anymore weight than mine. If you dont want some to disagree with you, then you shouldn't be posting.

[97 bulls]

Yes you do I have never said that. I think women should have the full choice of abortion.

Men should be allowed to give up rights and responsibilities to the child through an adoption like process
But what if the woman doesn't want to give the child up for adoption? I dont feel the man should be able to get off scot free and leave that responsibility solely to the mother.

[Real Men Wear Green]

No. Thats a bad analogy. First were talking about TWO people. Not one. What youre essentially doing is in you Durant example is only discussing Durants game. Not the team. Now if both Durant and Westbrook had 40/7/8 games and played exactly the same on defense and you only credit Durant for the win, then that would be a problem.

Another example two people rob a bank but you only want to prosecute one of them.

You need to get off your high horse. The original post was centered on gender inequality. Not the laws of the land. You make yourself look bad when you sling insults and question my intelligence based on my opinion. As if yours holds anymore weight than mine. If you dont want some to disagree with you, then you shouldn't be posting.
Your entire argument is based on your inability to understand basic English. Of course I don't see you as my equal. Why would I? Take the first paragraph in your latest worthless reply. It would be obvious to most people that I am saying just because I say something about one party doesn't mean I'm saying that another party had nothing to do with it. But no, you can't comprehend this, instead you complain that the stat lines must be equal. You really aren't saying anything of value.

[97 bulls]

Mavs wrote:So I point out that a woman dealing with an absentee mate has to consider that when making her decision. I did not miss the point you just have yet again failed to understand basic English.

Not even in the mood to start on your wonderful solution of abandoning babies at fire hydrants. (Intentional misinterpretation there, letting you know because you seem a little slow even when I write plainly).
Reread his original post. He stated that he doesnt feel its fair for a man to have to shoulder the burden of financing a child he doesnt want when a woman can simply abandon her obligation by just dropping her kids off at a hospital or fire station.

His topic is "Gender Inequality".

[Real Men Wear Green]

Reread his original post. He stated that he doesnt feel its fair for a man to have to shoulder the burden of financing a child he doesnt want when a woman can simply abandon her obligation by just dropping her kids off at a hospital or fire station.

His topic is "Gender Inequality".
Dude. I quoted what I replied to. I really should stop replying to you entirely but apparently I have a masochist streak.

[LJJ]

Question for the guys supporting this:

Would it also be ok for women to walk away from the financial burden? The woman has the child, hands it over to the guy, and walks away. The guy now becomes the single parent who shoulders the entire financial burden.

Yes this does exist. It's called giving up a child for adoption. Single moms do it all the time.

[Akrazotile]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/BrittanyNorwood-250px-240x214.jpg


Honestly, I don't even find chicks like that attractive. That chick claims to be 20?? She looks like a 30 year old stripper desperately clinging to her dissipating youth.

The generic playboy look is so... blech. It just screams 'empty personality, hollow-headed and vain.' Like guys with big muscles who wear tight shirts. Yeah of course if I was drunk or if she walked right up to me and threw her cards on the table, I wouldn't turn it down. But they're really not very appealing. The fact that this guy was having a continuous affair with her tells me he just straight up has bad taste.

[Akrazotile]

Yes this does exist. It's called giving up a child for adoption. Single moms do it all the time.


Adoption can take a long time and often times these kids just get passed around temporary residences full of other kids. It's a mess. It's terrible for the child and terrible for society.

If I'm not mistaken, Chris Andersen and Jimmy Graham are a couple examples of athletes who went through that kind of thing. Fortunately for them they had good genes and a strong will. But most kids in those situations don't exactly blossom.

[Jailblazers7]

Yes this does exist. It's called giving up a child for adoption. Single moms do it all the time.

Not what I meant and you know it. I meant simply walking away and leaving the child to the father, without the father's consent.

[Akrazotile]

It just is what it is. Society has a lot of shit-for-brains people with absolutely no purpose. Unfortunately when they screw up, they feel no pressure to be accountable because they're not going anywhere anyway. So we have to basically just clean their mess up and be thankful we're not as base as they are. If we try to grab them by the collar and say QUIT ****ING UP the aclu will run in screaming and crying and peeing their pants, and pussees will say "yeah! come on man! stop being a republican jerk! have some feelings man, wheres ur emotions! try being like a cool smart democrat for once, we're so smart because we have so many emotions and stuff man!"

And that's the story of how we got where we are.


It's like that one comedian says. "You can't fix stupid." You just can't. Some people in this world are stupid. When they make more stupid kids, society becomes the babysitter. Half of America thinks we should collectively have to babysit other people's kids. It's a very strange and irrational position. And yet... there it is.

[gts]

Not what I meant and you know it. I meant simply walking away and leaving the child to the father, without the father's consent.

Actually the woman would then pay child support.. Women are not immune from financial responsibility if the roles are reversed... There are plenty of women paying child support where the father has custody

[Jailblazers7]

Actually the woman would then pay child support.. Women are not immune from financial responsibility if the roles are reversed... There are plenty of women paying child support where the father has custody

I didn't mean to imply that situation like that didn't exist. OP is suggesting that men should have the ability to absolve themselves of the responsibility for child support and leave the woman with custody and the full financial burden. I am asking if women should be allowed to do the same in his "gender equal" scenario.

[gts]

I didn't mean to imply that situation like that didn't exist. OP is suggesting that men should have the ability to absolve themselves of the responsibility for child support and leave the woman with custody and the full financial burden. I am asking if women should be allowed to do the same in his "gender equal" scenario.


I know that... Just adding to the conversation.

[Jailblazers7]

I know that... Just adding to the conversation.

Ok, my bad then. Just want to make sure I was being clear.

[LJJ]

I didn't mean to imply that situation like that didn't exist. OP is suggesting that men should have the ability to absolve themselves of the responsibility for child support and leave the woman with custody and the full financial burden. I am asking if women should be allowed to do the same in his "gender equal" scenario.

This also already exists, it's called surrogacy.

[97 bulls]

Your entire argument is based on your inability to understand basic English. Of course I don't see you as my equal. Why would I? Take the first paragraph in your latest worthless reply. It would be obvious to most people that I am saying just because I say something about one party doesn't mean I'm saying that another party had nothing to do with it. But no, you can't comprehend this, instead you complain that the stat lines must be equal. You really aren't saying anything of value.
Lol, the topic is about Gender Inequality. Your first post is directed at men. Why? He go public. The woman did. Why not discuss her shortcomings? She made the video

[Jailblazers7]

This also already exists, it's called surrogacy.

Aaand now you're just trolling me

[LJJ]

Aaand now you're just trolling me

Don't call something trolling if an argument doesn't go your way.

During a single mom pregnancy:

1. Mother wants to raise the child, father accepts child support: legally possible
2. Father wants to raise the child, mother accepts child support: legally possible
3. Father wants to raise the child, mother doesn't accept any financial burden: legally possible
4. Neither the mother or the father want any resposibility for the child: legally possible
5. Mother wants to raise the child, father doesn't accept child support: not legally possible

That's factual. This covers all the scenarios in which the child is unwanted by one (or more) of the parents.

[Jailblazers7]

Don't call something trolling if an argument doesn't go your way.

During a single mom pregnancy:

1. Mother wants to raise the child, father accepts child support: legally possible
2. Father wants to raise the child, mother accepts child support: legally possible
3. Father wants to raise the child, mother doesn't accept any financial burden: legally possible
4. Neither the mother or the father want any resposibility for the child: legally possible
5. Mother wants to raise the child, father doesn't accept child support: not legally possible

That's factual. This covers all the scenarios in which the child is unwanted by one (or more) of the parents.

Maybe the bold is what I'm unclear about. In what scenario is it possible for a mother to abandon the family and not pay child support?

[shlver]

Laughing doesn't change facts. The body operates for the purpose of the baby FIRST. Then the mother.
This is not fact. From a physiological perspective, it doesn't make sense and this is not how energy transport works in the human body. Saying maternal transporters selectively block the uptake of nutrients until the fetus has met energy needs is not a fact. Maternal blood circulates through the mother first, and as the blood flows over the placental interface, specific transporters uptake and transport the nutrients to the placenta. Now explain to me how a nine inch interface between mother and fetus can take all nutrients before the mother(remember blood circulates through the mother first). Can you find a study that supports and investigates the regulatory mechanisms behind shutting off all maternal transport of nutrients in favor of placental transport?
Hint:It doesn't exist.

[LJJ]

Maybe the bold is what I'm unclear about. In what scenario is it possible for a mother to abandon the family and not pay child support?

If the father wants the child but the mother wants nothing to do with the child essentially the father will have to agree to sole parental responsibility.

[gts]

If the father wants the child but the mother wants nothing to do with the child essentially the father will have to agree to sole parental responsibility.
And if the woman has the baby, the mother will be responsible for child support, at least in Cali they are. Just because she's a woman it does not excuse her from financial resposibility

[HardwoodLegend]

It's so funny to me how Arian Foster luvs to portray this image of being the high brow, intellectual, 'deep' athlete then goes and pulls a typical meathead pregnancy scandal.

There is nothing lowbrow or "meathead" about infidelity that leads to an unwanted pregnancy.

So, the image you think Foster is "portraying" may in fact be an accurate representation of who he actually is. Men from all walks of life cheat.

[LJJ]

And if the woman has the baby, the mother will be responsible for child support, at least in Cali they are. Just because she's a woman it does not excuse her from financial resposibility

Absolutely not. Having the baby is separate from keeping the baby. If during pregnancy a mother decides she doesn't want parental responsibility for the baby that's an entirely possible route.

[97 bulls]

This is not fact. From a physiological perspective, it doesn't make sense and this is not how energy transport works in the human body. Saying maternal transporters selectively block the uptake of nutrients until the fetus has met energy needs is not a fact. Maternal blood circulates through the mother first, and as the blood flows over the placental interface, specific transporters uptake and transport the nutrients to the placenta. Now explain to me how a nine inch interface between mother and fetus can take all nutrients before the mother(remember blood circulates through the mother first). Can you find a study that supports and investigates the regulatory mechanisms behind shutting off all maternal transport of nutrients in favor of placental transport?
Hint:It doesn't exist.
Oh yes it is. When my wife was pregnant with our first child. Her doctor said she had a calcium deficiency. Obviously we were afraid for the child's development. The doctor was more.concerned with what would happen to my wife. He stated if she wasnt taking in enough calcium, the baby would extract it from the mother herself. And in time the mother would develop complications down the road from it. Thats when he explained that the baby is gonna get what it needs to develop first. Obviously if the mother isnt taking in nutrients, the baby will suffer as well.

But my point is the mother has no say in how much of the nutrients she takes in will be allotted for baby. Baby takes it.

[ROCSteady]

There is nothing lowbrow or "meathead" about infidelity that leads to an unwanted pregnancy.

So, the image you think Foster is "portraying" may in fact be an accurate representation of who he actually is. Men from all walks of life cheat.

No shit, just funny how hard he tries to rise above people's perception of standard athlete mentality only to get slammed on the type of cliche that fans pitchfork flame & character assassinate well known sports players for on the reg.

And trust me, dude goes out of his way to get people and the public to see him as an academic, intelligent thinking type. That's great if he really does have scholarly and educational interests but it's pretty obvious that he goes the extra mile so people think of him a certain way.

Just an observation that many many Texan, NFL & sports fans that are aware of this pregnancy now will categorize Foster in that 'typical, thinking with d!ick jock' category when dude has made extra lengths in interviews, tweets, ESPN segments to be thought of as a thinking man's athlete. Pseudo Intellectual guy.

[ROCSteady]

"yeah! come on man! stop being a republican jerk! have some feelings man, wheres ur emotions! try being like a cool smart democrat for once, we're so smart because we have so many emotions and stuff man!"




:oldlol: classic starface quote. :applause:

Same quote, diff variety of quote under like a 39th username :bowdown:

Give it up for the starman

[sundizz]

Because the woman carries the baby in their body, which assumes the risk of carrying a baby and childbirth. (My wife had a pretty serious condition for about a year from the 2nd pregnancy.) The man does not. I've been through two pregnancies. My wife carried a rock around with her and a pool around it to carry the rock. I said reassuring things and bought things. It's a bit easier being the man.

Some of you have very little respect for woman or any clue on being a man if you think that anything that has to do with children is something to ridicule women about. Grow up.

Spoken like a true herb.

If a girl chooses to keep the baby that's all good. I support choice. However, the father should also have a choice whether he wants a baby, both for financial and emotional reasons. If he wants no part of the kid, should definitely be able to sign some sort of legality paper that makes it so he doesn't have to pay child support etc. If he wants to support the kid then he can choose to do that.

Key factor, the women is choosing to key the baby. The man doesn't (and shouldn't) get any say in this since it is not him carrying the child. However, to say he has to be responsible for the next 18 years is just unfair. The only time a man should have to pay child support is a pregnancy happens during being married.

[LJJ]

Spoken like a true herb.

If a girl chooses to keep the baby that's all good. I support choice. However, the father should also have a choice whether he wants a baby, both for financial and emotional reasons. If he wants no part of the kid, should definitely be able to sign some sort of legality paper that makes it so he doesn't have to pay child support etc. If he wants to support the kid then he can choose to do that.

Key factor, the women is choosing to key the baby. The man doesn't (and shouldn't) get any say in this since it is not him carrying the child. However, to say he has to be responsible for the next 18 years is just unfair. The only time a man should have to pay child support is a pregnancy happens during being married.

It's not entirely fair when you compare the legal situation of the man and the woman, but laws don't always have to be based around what is "fair" for the individual.

Why should society have to subsidize scumbags who impregnate women they don't give a shit about? If the child exists someone is going to have to pick up the tab anyway, and I rather have that be the man responsible than me and the rest of the taxpayers.
More importantly, as a society you want to keep the amount of children growing up in broken homes as low as possible.

[MavsSuperFan]

You totally missed the point. Why should the man be legally required to finance a baby he doesn't want when a woman can basically drop her child off at a hospital or fire station with no questions asked? Which is essentially abandoning the child.
nobody has of yet answered this

[MavsSuperFan]

If the man is allowed to opt out of responsibility for the child you are not really giving the woman complete control over whether or not she has the baby. She has to factor the lack of support from the man into her decision. Your thinking lacks any kind of appreciation for how difficult that is. Fortunately we live in a society that isn't so completely amoral.
First of all most men would not opt out of the responsibility of rearing a child. If a man and woman are married/in a committed relationship there is very little chance that he wouldnt be overjoyed with the prospect of parenthood.

Second of all I am asking for equality under the law. Do you support safe haven laws? Do you support the ability to choose when to become a mother based only on social and economic factors? Do you buy into the studies that show how unplanned motherhood statistically speaking dooms a woman to a life of poverty?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

[QUOTE]Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the parent. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.[1]
Texas was the first state to enact a

[MavsSuperFan]

Mavs wrote:So I point out that a woman dealing with an absentee mate has to consider that when making her decision. I did not miss the point you just have yet again failed to understand basic English.

Not even in the mood to start on your wonderful solution of abandoning babies at fire hydrants. (Intentional misinterpretation there, letting you know because you seem a little slow even when I write plainly).


your argument is flawed.

its like arguing that banks should be required to give automatic low interest loans to poor people with horrible credit, because not doing so would infringe on their choice of house arrangements. Its not societies responsibility to provide the resources to purchase a home to anyone. It is societies responsibility to give the right of buying a home to everyone.

Women have the right to choose to abort or keep the baby. that is 100% their choice. they should not be able to claim the money of the father.

We have safe haven laws in this country that allow a women to easily give up an unwanted child for adoption. There is a lot of studies that show the benefits of safe haven laws.

What is the argument against extending safe haven laws to males?

[MavsSuperFan]

Your argument is flawed and you know it.

You said the man should have the right to decide what a woman does to her body. Did you not say that? Do I need to quote you?
I am still waiting for either a quote or an admission that you made a mistake.

I am very much pro choice. I have been 100% supportive of a womans right to unilaterally choose whether to abort or keep a baby since highschool

I am very liberal on stuff like this and offended that you claimed I wanted to curtail a woman's right to choose

[step_back]

Just don't have sex with women you aren't willing to impregnate. If you can't accept the risk then don't engage in the behavior. Have a wank.

I agree with this, however it's not entirely his fault. She could have insisted he wear a condom before jumping on her back and spreading her legs.

Both are idiots and both are to blame.

[Dresta]

And people don't see pregnancy or birth as a hardship for women for some reason. It's baffling. They really are like children, themselves first always. As men. :facepalm
They do?

Life is full of hardships that are completely undesired, so i don't see how this one should be any different. From my perspective, i can't think of many things more selfish than aborting your child to make your life less painful and more convenient. THAT is the definition of a selfish act.

And yes, there is a double standard when it comes to reproductive rights; if the decision depends solely on the mother, then legal responsibility for the child should also lie with the mother. In what world is 'i can kill this foetus against your will if i so choose, but if i keep it you gonna pay for it' equal in any way?

[Dresta]

Oh yes it is. When my wife was pregnant with our first child. Her doctor said she had a calcium deficiency. Obviously we were afraid for the child's development. The doctor was more.concerned with what would happen to my wife. He stated if she wasnt taking in enough calcium, the baby would extract it from the mother herself. And in time the mother would develop complications down the road from it. Thats when he explained that the baby is gonna get what it needs to develop first. Obviously if the mother isnt taking in nutrients, the baby will suffer as well.

But my point is the mother has no say in how much of the nutrients she takes in will be allotted for baby. Baby takes it.
The baby does take from the same nutrient stores, but all that's really required would be to drink an extra glass of milk a day in that case (calcium). I don't see how this is a problem. The belief that a pregnant woman needs to consume for 2 is a myth.



Second of all I am asking for equality under the law. Do you support safe haven laws? Do you support the ability to choose when to become a mother based only on social and economic factors? Do you buy into the studies that show how unplanned motherhood statistically speaking dooms a woman to a life of poverty?

As a person who thinks equality under the law to be a salient principle that has been forgotten or disregarded in favour of other, less attainable forms of equality, i find it strange that you would say this, considering how many of the views you have expressed on here are completely dependent on the inequality of the law. The state gets involved on the behalf of one set of people, to the detriment of others, all the bloody time. Nor are things like progressive taxation compatible with equality before the law.

[sick_brah07]

women have an easy road through life, as much as they complain that they dont. All they need to do is have a baby or get married to some schmo and they can sit on their ass for the rest of their lives watching X-factor.


virtual high 5 to the absolute truth

[shlver]

Oh yes it is. When my wife was pregnant with our first child. Her doctor said she had a calcium deficiency. Obviously we were afraid for the child's development. The doctor was more.concerned with what would happen to my wife. He stated if she wasnt taking in enough calcium, the baby would extract it from the mother herself. And in time the mother would develop complications down the road from it. Thats when he explained that the baby is gonna get what it needs to develop first. Obviously if the mother isnt taking in nutrients, the baby will suffer as well.

But my point is the mother has no say in how much of the nutrients she takes in will be allotted for baby. Baby takes it.
Sure, the baby takes it by a nine inch placental interface on the uterine wall. Now let's go back to my post that you blatantly ignored, all the mother's blood is flowing in the mother. There is no blood ever flowing from the mother to the fetus. What happens when blood flows through blood vessels? Different molecules(nutrients, energy carriers, etc) bind to proteins situated on the vessel wall. There is much more blood flowing in the mother's body than across the placental area of contact. This means that there are more chemical and energy producing reactions occurring in the mother which means more net nutrients are used for the mother.
You are right that the mother has no say in how much of the nutrients will be uptaken by the baby. That amount is governed by placental transport efficiency(density of nutrient uptake proteins on placental interface) and concentration of nutrients in the mother's blood which requires adequate nutrition in the mother. I used a lot of words that you probably do not know, but my point is what your doctor said does not support what you said. Decalcification in the mother is an example of the symbiotic relationship in which both bodies can adapt to the metabolism of the other. What evolutionary advantage would "operating solely for fetus" serve? The mother has to survive to take care of the baby. The mother's metabolism serves itself more than the needs of the baby.

[ArbitraryWater]

Equal rights and all that stuff between men and women how they're viewed in sceenarios like this, is a deep topic. shit is very complex.

[ArbitraryWater]

women have an easy road through life, as much as they complain that they dont. All they need to do is have a baby or get married to some schmo and they can sit on their ass for the rest of their lives watching X-factor.

Not just that, but almost always they have an easy/great school road to age 20 somewhat too.

Atleast thats the good looking ones, those become more and more tricking people with make up. They get everything they want, are popular and rarely ever attacked n stuff. Teachers go easier on them too i feel.
They have it all easier, but then again there is a different side in today's age, women being looked at as objects a lot, which is because most of them are also arrogant dbags, outside of looks not much interesting about them.

[step_back]

There has always been a double standard when it comes to equal rights. Women have all the say and are greatly favored in courts when it comes to custody. It's only in recent history that women have been sent off to fight in wars. Front line soldiers are still the men.

I'm all for equal rights AS LONG as it is equal rights!

[MavsSuperFan]

As a person who thinks equality under the law to be a salient principle that has been forgotten or disregarded in favour of other, less attainable forms of equality, i find it strange that you would say this, considering how many of the views you have expressed on here are completely dependent on the inequality of the law. The state gets involved on the behalf of one set of people, to the detriment of others, all the bloody time. Nor are things like progressive taxation compatible with equality before the law.
You are right. When I refer to equality under the law I am only referring in regards to gender, race/ethnicity, age, orientation, religion and other such liberal ideas of equality.

I think its completely fair for example to deny the right to vote to a person convicted of a felony. I think its is completely acceptable to gave harsher sentences to repeat offenders.

I think progressive taxation is completely acceptable. I think property taxes are completely acceptable.

[Dresta]

You are right. When I refer to equality under the law I am only referring in regards to gender, race/ethnicity, age, orientation, religion and other such liberal ideas of equality.

I think its completely fair for example to deny the right to vote to a person convicted of a felony. I think its is completely acceptable to gave harsher sentences to repeat offenders.

I think progressive taxation is completely acceptable. I think property taxes are completely acceptable.
Ah, so you pick and choose your prejudices, i see. I think you will find that the liberal idea of equality is for equality before the law, and that it is needed to have a government ruled by law rather than the arbitrary whims of men, and the injudicious opinions of the majority. That is what liberal equality meant before socialists mutilated its definition. It was the philosophical justification for the American revolution, and provided the system of values and ideals that the United States was founded on. It also brought unprecedented human advance and achievement with it. For democracy to function correctly, equality before the law must be adhered to, the two are contiguous.

Your understanding has been manipulated without you even being aware of it:

'‘The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Your middle paragraph would be perfectly compatible with equality before the law anyway. And i think when many of the so-called liberals are clamouring for 'equality' for one particular group, frequently what they are asking for is for the state to intervene on the behalf of one group, which is not equality before the law. They may call it 'positive discrimination' in another effort to manipulate language in their favour, but to positively discriminate against one person, you must negatively discriminate against somebody else.

edit: can someone tell me how a word can be changed to mean the opposite of what it originally did (in less than 100 years, no less) and it retain any value or use whatsoever. Liberal is now a redundant term, and i generally know that anybody who refers to themselves as one doesn't know what they're talking about.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=Dresta]Ah, so you pick and choose your prejudices, i see. I think you will find that the liberal idea of equality is for equality before the law, and that it is needed to have a government ruled by law rather than the arbitrary whims of men, and the injudicious opinions of the majority. That is what liberal equality meant before socialists mutilated its definition. It was the philosophical justification for the American revolution, and provided the system of values and ideals that the United States was founded on. It also brought unprecedented human advance and achievement with it. For democracy to function correctly, equality before the law must be adhered to, the two are contiguous.

Your understanding has been manipulated without you even being aware of it:

[B]'

[Balla_Status]

Only people who just took junior year US history think the New Deal was some amazing thing.